<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
<b>To:</b> Family Members, Friends and Supporters of Veronza Bowers<br>
<b>From: </b>Bryan Gaynor, Alan Chaset & Monty Levenson<br>
</font><h1><b>Subject: Summary of Recent
Developments</b></h1><font size=3> <br>
<b>Date: </b>July 18, 2005<br>
<b>I. Summary<br>
</b> <br>
The National Parole Commission has again blocked Veronza Bower Jr.’s
right to be released on mandatory parole after serving more than 31 years
in prison. The Commission’s latest decision is the third in a series of
high-handed and improper<s> </s>actions to deny Veronza his right to be
released on parole. It was made in complete disregard of the Commission’s
legal obligation to follow applicable federal statutes as well as its own
rules and regulations. We believe this latest and most egregious
decision, made at the request of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is
politically motivated, disregards Veronza’s exceptionally good conduct in
prison and is an unlawful denial of his right to due process. <br>
<br>
Under the circumstances, it is recommended the every effort be made to
resist the Commission’s blatantly illegal actions by the following means:
(1) Filing appropriate objections with the Commission itself and with the
National Appeal Board whom the Commission has designated to hear this
latest travesty of justice; (2) filing a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> in
Federal District Court at the earliest possible date; and (3) initiating
appropriate legal proceedings to challenge the Commission’s repeated
failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests for documents
and papers that we believe will shed light on its improper political
agenda.<br>
<br>
<b>II. Background Information<br>
<br>
</b>To the amazement of many familiar with the workings of the U.S.
parole system, Veronza Bowers, Jr. has not been released from prison
after serving his full sentence of thirty years plus what will be sixteen
months of <s>additional</s> illegal detention by the time of his next
hearing date. By notice of action dated June 14, 2005, the U.S. Parole
Commission has “retarded” Veronza’s release date for a period not to
exceed 60 days. This action was taken on the basis of a petition from the
Attorney General to have the matter of his release on parole reconsidered
by the National Appeals Board. <br>
<br>
This memo explains the legal significance of this latest development and
why we think it constitutes improper action on the part of the
Commission. It also outlines actions we encourage Veronza’s supporters to
take in our continuing effort to secure his release on parole.<br>
<br>
<b>a. First Release Date<br>
</b> <br>
Some background is needed to understand the legal significance of this
latest twist in the road to parole: As many of you may know, Veronza had
the legal right to be released on what is known as “mandatory parole”
since April 7, 2004 because the Parole Commission failed to find, by that
date, that (1) there was competent evidence he was likely to commit
crimes if upon release, or (2) he had frequently violated the rules of
the prison system or (3) committed serious violations of prison rules
during his incarceration. Only making one of these three findings could
the Commission lawfully deny him parole as of that date. What happened
instead was that only a few hours before Veronza was to be released on
April 7<sup>th </sup>of last year, the Commission ordered the Bureau of
Prisons to cancel his parole and hold him in prison indefinitely. This
order was made without any explanation, justification or finding
whatsoever.<br>
<br>
<b>b. Writ Proceedings Before Judge William T. Hodges<br>
</b> <br>
On October 26, 2004, Federal Judge William Terrell Hodges of the Middle
District of Florida ruled on a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> brought on
Veronza’s behalf by attorney Todd Scher. After careful consideration,
Judge Hodges ordered the Commission to hold a hearing within 60 days and
release Veronza on mandatory parole if, at the conclusion of that
hearing, there was no competent evidence to support one of the above
three findings. Judge Hodges is a distinguished jurist who has been a
federal judge for over 30 years and this year’s recipient of the Devitt
Distinguished Service to Justice Award. The Devitt Award honors the
career of a federal judge of national stature whose decisions are
characterized by wisdom, humanity and commitment to the rule of law.<br>
<br>
The hearing ordered by Judge Hodges was held on December 21, 2004.
Evidence presented included the testimony of Mr. Hans H. Selvog, a
nationally-recognized criminologist and Clinical Director of the National
Center of Institutions and Alternatives in Alexandria, Virginia. Mr.
Selvog administered a battery of psychological tests on Veronza designed
to assess his suitability for parole and likelihood of success in
adapting to life outside of prison. It was his expert opinion that
Veronza is normal and socially well-adjusted with no criminal disposition
whatsoever and, therefore, an excellent candidate for parole. <br>
<br>
<b>c. Second Release Date<br>
</b> <br>
At the conclusion of the December hearing, examiner Rob Haworth ruled
that Veronza was eligible for mandatory parole and recommended that he be
released from prison on February 18, 2005. At this hearing, Mr. Haworth
commented that he considered Veronza to be one of the best candidates for
parole he had ever encountered. In early January, a single Commissioner,
Cranston J. Mitchell, ordered Veronza’s release on parole based on Mr.
Haworth’s findings and recommendations. It appeared to us that the
Commission was finally accepting its legally-mandated duty to act in a
manner consistent with the law and that Veronza would be released on
parole, albeit more than 10 month after his statutory release date of
April 7, 2004. We soon learned that this assumption was wrong.<br>
<br>
On February 18, 2005, approximately 15 minutes before Veronza was
scheduled to be released from prison, the Commission notified the warden
at the Coleman Correctional Facility that his parole order had been
rescinded and the entire five-member Commission would be convened to
reconsider his case. This 11<sup>th</sup> hour order to have his parole
reconsidered by the entire Commission was made solely on the basis of
unsupported, spurious allegations by the victim’s widow and members of
law enforcement acting through an organization called the Fraternal Order
of Police (FOP). Their petition to the Commission was based, in part, on
allegations that Veronza had committed numerous violations of prison
rules during his incarceration including arranging two contract murders.
Needless to say, neither facts or evidence of any kinds were introduced
in support of these patently false accusations. <br>
<br>
The matter of the rehearing was granted without notice to Veronza’s legal
team and was issued by the Commission <i>ex parte, </i>(i.e. his
attorneys were not permitted to appear before the Commission to oppose
the request for rehearing). Alan Chaset, head of the legal team, made our
objections know through letters and phone calls to the Commission.
Repeated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for copies of the
documents relied on by the Commission in granting the rehearing have been
largely ignored, as have been our repeated objections to the entire
proceeding. <br>
<br>
<b>d. Third Release Date<br>
<br>
</b>As part of the rehearing process, another hearing examiner, Mr.
Howard, was appointed to review the factual allegations of the
petitioners and to allow Veronza and his attorney an opportunity to
respond to them. On March 21, 2005, Mr. Howard conducted a hearing at the
Coleman Correctional Facility and made the same recommendation that Mr.
Haworth had made in December: Because there is no credible evidence to
support any one of the findings necessary to deny Veronza mandatory
parole, he is eligible for and should be released on parole. Mr. Howard
took Veronza aside after the conclusion of the hearing to wish him the
best of luck in his efforts to gain release.<br>
<br>
Between March 21, 2005 and May 16, 2005, the Parole Commission,
exercising what is referred to as “original jurisdiction”, reviewed the
Mr. Howard’s recommendations. This meant that the entire five-member
Commission would be convened to reconsider the matter of Veronza’s right
to mandatory parole that had been previously decided by a single
Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell. <br>
<br>
On May 16, 2004, the Commission issued its decision affirming Veronza’s
right to mandatory parole based on the following vote: two Commissioners
in favor, two opposed and one abstaining. Since the law clearly places
the burden of proof on the Commission, anything less than a majority vote
supporting one of the required findings meant that Veronza was entitled
to be released on mandatory parole as ordered by Judge Hodges.
Accordingly, June 21, 2005 was established as his new release date.
However, like all other past dates, this too proved to be more fiction
than fact. <br>
<br>
<b>III. Most Recent Denial of Parole by the Commission<br>
<br>
</b>On June 14, 2005 Veronza’s most recent release date was rescinded by
the Commission acting again without notice to his attorneys and without
affording him or them an opportunity to object. This time, the
Commission’s decision was based on a request by the United States
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the National Appeals Board
reconsider the Commission’s May 16, 2005 original jurisdiction
decision.<br>
<br>
<b>a. National Appeal Board<br>
</b> <br>
We need here to clarify exactly what constitutes the National Appeals
Board. By statute, [18 USC 4204(a)(5)], the Chairman of the U.S. Parole
Commission is authorized to appoint three Commissioners to a National
Appeals Board. That Board, once constituted, is authorized to review the
following decisions: (1) A decision by a single Commissioner granting or
denying parole may be reviewed by the Commission itself or the Commission
may refer the matter to the National Appeals Board for review, provided
“any such decision so reviewed must be reaffirmed, modified or reversed
within thirty days of the date the decision is rendered” [18 USC
4203(c)(4)]; (2) Any decision adverse to a parole may be appealed by the
parolee [?] to the National Appeals Board [18 USC 4215(a)]; and (3) A
decision of a single regional commissioner “upon the written request of
the Attorney General filed not later than thirty days following the
decision” shall be reviewed by the National Appeals Board within sixty
days of the receipt of the Attorney General's request (18 USC 4215(c))
[18 USC 4215(c)]. <br>
<b>b. Basis of Objections to the Commission’s Recent Action<br>
</b>Any review by the National Appeals Board of the original jurisdiction
decision of the Commission in this case is improper for the following
reasons: (1) The statute granting the National Appeals Board
authority to act on a request for review by the Attorney General,
authorizes such review only in the case of a decision by single
<i>regional</i>, as opposed to a national, Commissioner and there was no
such decision in this case; (2) The Commission<s>,</s> itself has
authority to refer the decision of a single national Commissioner to the
National Appeals Board, however, it must do so within 30 days of the date
of that decision. In Veronza’s case, it has been more than 5 months since
Commissioner Mitchell issued his decision in this matter; (3)
Commissioner Mitchell’s decision was vacated by the Commission when it
exercised original jurisdiction to consider the matter of Veronza’s right
to mandatory parole. Under 18 USC 4203(c)(4), the Commission had
authority to (1) conduct an original jurisdiction review the decision
itself or (2) refer the matter to the National Appeals Board for review.
The Commission elected to conduct the review itself and there is no
authority whatsoever for a second review by the National Appeals Board.
<br>
<br>
We consider the latest action by the Commission granting the Attorney
General a hearing before the National Appeals Board to be without a
proper basis in law. There is no statutory authority whatsoever for
the three members of the Commission acting as the National Appeals Board
to review the decision of the entire Commission in this matter. It is our
position that the original jurisdiction decision by the Commission
constituted final agency action and any further action taken in this
matter violates due process. <br>
<br>
We are recently informed that the Commission intends to publish
“emergency rules” in the federal register in an effort to address the
unprecedented nature of the Attorney General’s request for and its
decision to grant a hearing in this matter. The absence of any proper
legal basis for the Commission’s actions and its attempt to draft rules
at this late date to justify such actions is a further violation of
Veronza’s right<s>s</s> of due process.<br>
<br>
What we find most objectionable in this case is the obvious politization
of what is supposed to be an objective and impartial administrative
process. This is occurring because of the unwillingness of the Commission
to stand firmly behind the rule of law in the face of pressure from the
Fraternal Order of Police and now the administration acting, we contend,
improperly<s>,</s> through the Attorney General. We see the Attorney
General’s intervention as illegal, unprecedented and pandering to the
political agenda of his administration’s constituents. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with the merits of Veronza’s case. The Commission, in
allowing this request to go forward, has acted once again in a manner
that evidences an arbitrary and capricious disregard for Veronza’s legal
right to be paroleda right that will be nearly sixteen months past due
when his newest release date, August 21, 2005, comes. . . and goes. . .
as it has each time in the past. <br>
<br>
<b>IV. Recommended Actions<br>
</b> <br>
It is imperative that this latest impropriety by the Commission be
addressed immediately on three fronts: First, in the pending proceedings
before the National Appeals Board; second, through court action in the
form of a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i>; and third, by confronting the
Commission under the Freedom of Information Act with its refusal to
comply with FOIA requests made by Veronza’s attorneys. <br>
<br>
We will continue to press the U.S. Parole Commission and the National
Appeals Board with our objections to its arbitrary and repeated denial of
Veronza’s right to mandatory parole, most recently by granting the
Attorney General a hearing in this matter at this late date. We also
recommend that a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> or other appropriate
petition be filed with Judge Hodges as soon as possible, given the fact
that there is no legal basis for the Commission to create, on its own
initiative and without any statutory authority, the pending review by the
National Appeals Board. It will be important to lay before this eminent
jurist the Commission’s flagrant violation of his previous ruling in this
matter. <br>
<br>
This most recent setback has not lessened our commitment to obtain
Veronza’s release on parole at the earliest possible date. To accomplish
this, however, we need the continuing involvement of his family, friends
and supporters. In this regard, we recommend that you consider taking one
or more of the following three actions: (1) Stay involved: Write letters
to the U.S. Parole Commission, the Attorney General and the National
Appeals Board. It is very important to make your voice heard in this
matter. Emphasize Veronza’s excellent record in prison and unquestionable
legal entitlement to parole; (2) Stay involved: Check Veronza’s web site
for action bulletins and updates on his case.
<a href="http://veronza.org/">http://veronza.org</a> Do whatever you can
to help. You input, ideas and suggestions are welcome. (3) Stay
involved: Continue your generous financial support. Contributions to the
Veronza Bowers, Jr. Legal Defense Fund make it possible for all of us to
play an important role in correcting this injustice and winning his
release from prison.<br>
<br>
Your opinions, ideas and suggestions are most welcome. Please send them
to veronzab@yahoo.com<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>