2006 started out badly for Ron. A group of activists met with the then parole chairman Lenard Wells and , among other things, Mr Wells promised that Ron Schilling would be free within the month. Soon , however, the decision was reversed and the grant of parole was rescinded. The following letters bring out the stated reasons for the change, the heartsick reactions, and the legal reasons why the grant should not have been denied.
1)Letter from Frank Van den Bosch, one of the attendees at the meeting with lenard Wells.
March 14, 2006
Mr. Lenard Wells, Chairperson
Wisconsin Parole Commission
3099 E. Washington Ave.
P.O. Box 7960
Madison, W! 53707
01 May 2006
Dear Mr. Wells,
On January 10th, 2006 you were kind enough to meet with a few Incarceration Coalition folks, myself included. The meeting was informational in nature, but we did ask that you review a few files.
Ron Schilling's file was one that we asked you to review, and at the meeting you said that he would be granted parole. I asked you at that time, what that meant, and you said he would be released within 30 days. The other two grants that you gave in that meeting, Andre Pirtle and Terrence Bridges, did in fact leave prison within that time frame. Thank you for that, they are both working and happy to be in society.
I have received a letter from Ron Schilling that states that you have now changed your mind, and he was given yet another defer. After serving over 30 years in prison, and with no new incident occurring between January 10th and today, I cannot imagine what would cause you to reverse your reviewed decision. If he was deemed parolable on January 10, 2006, what new factor has entered this equation?
This is the second time in the last year, that advocates for Mr. Schilling were told he would soon be released, and the second time that you have reversed your decision. I cannot imagine the anguish this has caused Mr. Schilling. His co-defendants were released long ago, and yet he sits, for no definable reason, or is there one? Please let me know?
Sincerely,
Frank Van den Bosch P.O. Box 151 Fennimore, Wl 53809
2)Answer from the parole Chairman
Lenard wells
Parole Commission
3099 E. Washington Avenue
Post Office Box 7960
Madison, WI 53707-7960
April 3, 2006
RE: Inmate Schilling, Ronald DOC #032219
Dear Mr. Van den Bosch:
State Statute 304.06 prevented me from giving an Office Grant in Inmate Schilling's case. I have explained this to several members in your group and they have accepted that I can not violate state law.
I hope my eagerness to abide by the state law has not cause any ill will or harm to our relationship. I regret if the change of my decision caused Inmate Schilling emotional discomfort, but you can imagine what would have occurred based on the above State Statute and the emotional harm that could have occurred.
Sincerely,
Lenard Wells, parole chairman
3) Ron Schilling to lenard Wells
01 May 2006
Lenard Wells, Chairperson
Wisconsin Parole Commission
2701 International Lane Box 7960
Madison, WI 53707-7960
Re: Parole application, file 132219
Dear Mr. Wells:
It is with astonishment, disappointment and ultimate disgust that I find myself writing to you again. I had hoped my initial letter to you would have given you the heads-up on some of the problems in your office which your predecessors would not likely reveal to you. But it appears you are also electing to duck your head in the proverbial sand and continue treating the problems as if they do not exist, glossing over the issues by releasing an old-law lifer here and there for statistical manipulation. Paroling apparently has little or nothing to do with merit. Bear with me here because you've got to expect that I have a lot to say about your recent actions, and/or the lack thereof in rescinding my parole grant for no valid reason.
I am in receipt of your return correspondence to Frank Van den Bosch, of the Prisoner's Action Coalition, dated 03 April 2006. Upon verifying its authenticity, I feel more than obligated to respond. Being fairly well-versed in the laws, statutes, and rules governing and limiting your discretion and paroling authority, you might imagine my astonishment when pulling out the State Statutes to explore §304.06. in an attempt to verify your assertion that it somehow prevented you from keeping your word regarding my parole grant. Amazingly, that statutory provision contains absolutely nothing in the way of rationale to rescind my parole grant. In fact, as I'm sure you know, that provision provides you with carte blanche authority to grant a parole to anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any reason. No matter how it is parsed, that statute cannot be read in such a neglectful manner as to suggest it prevents you from keeping your word regarding my parole grant.
Copies of §304.06, Wis.Stats., have been sent to Mr. Van den Bosch and others of the Incarceration Coalition, so they can read first-hand what you are attempting to cite as a basis for your action and/or inaction. It is disappointing to see you disrespect and insult their intelligence in such fashion. They can read. And you had to know the charade would be discovered in short order for the deception it is.
The only portions of that statute that can be deemed even remotely relevant are as follows:
•Section 304.06(1)(b), provides that I can be paroled after serving 20 years. I start my 32nd year next month. So this cannot be what you are referring to.
•Section 304.06(1)(c)/ states that your office shall make a reasonable attempt to notify those people of concern like the victim's family upon initial consideration of parole or the effective date of the statute. Your office has done that each year as far as I know because they've been writing to your office and doing face-to-face meetings, and such, from the onset. So this cannot be what you were referring to.
•Section 304.06(1)(eg), provides that your office shall permit victims to attend the interview but, really, they've not wanted to attend all the past twenty or so hearings. So this cannot be what you were referring to, either. Unless someone from your office instructed them to attend the hearing so you could then use that as a basis for denying parole. As disgusting and illegal as that is, that actually has a feel of truth to it at this point. I will return to this point momentarily.
•Section 304.06(2), pertains to my having suitable employment or a means to legitimately sustain myself on the streets. Having secured employment, housing, financial support, transportation, food, clothing and everything else I could possibly need in Oshkosh, that statute should be more than satisfied.
•Same thing with §304.06(2)(d), about the residence determination. That is satisfied with the letter of support and my parole plan. Moreover, §304.06(2)(d)(1), has what is called a "voluntary concurrence of physical presence" for making that determination. Mainly that I agree that is where I will be residing. All this is satisfied as well. Ergo, there is nothing in §304.06, Wis.Stats., which prevents you from keeping your word regarding my parole grant.
Section 304.06, Wis.Stats., does nothing to support your claim that it somehow prevents you from keeping your word. I have met every substantive criteria and, in essence, you provided no rational basis whatsoever for rescinding my parole grant. You have provided no valid reasons or facts supporting those reasons, as are required to attend such a recission during a hearing
pursuant to §PAC 1.07(5)(c). I mean, that is basic due process. And, moreover, it is what the lav demands in Wisconsin.
And as you might also suspect, I have a few things to say about the banning of Ms. Peggy Swan, of the Forum For Understanding Prisons, from speaking on my behal£. It is my understanding that Ms. Swan was merely attempting to expose some of the facts to you regarding the particulars of my situation, and your response was to ban her. That is so fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Ms. Swan has faith in the ultimate goodness, albeit it is difficult sometimes. And she might be difficult to speak with at times because she is so passionate about her work, but she experiences it and, indeed, has expressed to me her belief in your goodness and desire to do the right thing. She can sense you are not heartless and that you are a caring person deep inside. And I have seen you grant paroles in instances where even I would be skeptical.
Moreover, being a strong advocate of scientific theory, I only deal in facts — as should you. Please understand that when Ms. Swan speaks of theoretical conspiracy it is only because that is precisely where all the facts fall. She did not manipulate or create the facts, and I certainly did not. But conspiracies can be proven with facts and evidence. Use your detective skills — peruse my 7-page letter to you dated 07 April 2003, the 13-page letter to Assistant District Attorney John Burr, dated 17 April 2002 and the 4-page letter to commissioner Hackbarth, dated 08 November 2004, with three pages of transcript quotes, all of which contain a plethora of highly detailed facts of the offense, my part in it, my sentiments, remorse, advancements and accomplishments over the decades, as well as the pointed circumstances surrounding my five returns from minimum security solely because of nefarious actions from your office. (note: all three letters mentioned are posted in this blog)Placed end to end it can plainly be seen that a conspiracy abounds, and nary a "theory" is to be found.
What sort of mean-spirited and menacing figure would continue to generate such negativity and opposition to my release? I do not believe that even the ADA is opposing parole any more since I wrote the 13-page letter to him a few years back. Gerald Beeringa (the old Waupun Security Director — who I successfully sued in the past/ and then who turned out to be the Uncle of the victim/ and then also turned out to be an alternate Parole Commissioner after he retired) or one of his buddies seems like a potential culprit encouraging the continued vengeance. It really does not make any sense that the victim's family would all of a sudden want to attend the hearing in November/ after nearly 32 years has passed.
And what is more, the situation begs the question, where else but your office would the motivation come from for the victim's family to all of a sudden desire to attend a parole hearing after so long? Please understand that I do sympathize and empathize with victims across the board, and laud every effort to alleviate their pain, and I can easily relate to the necessity of closure, if that is what this is about. But I have also witnessed a gradual shifting of the "parole" commission into a "victim" commission, which only seeks to view the victim as the sole entity harmed in the offense. I mean, it is a shallow view to see each offense as having only one victim because it completely ignores the trauma of the disgust and shame the offender experiences — and all of the hardships on his own family, for instance. It is as if I lost nothing or have sacrificed nothing over the decades. And if this victim-concern is being generated from your office it just seems so insensitive and wrong to re-victimize the family all over again. I almost understand the OOC agenda desiring to bash a prisoner one more time after the rehabilitative course has run and he as successfully dealt with the shame and disgust of the offense over 32 years; that retributive sort of vengeance seems to underlie most OOC policy these days. But to manipulate the victim's family to attend the parole hearing in November is so very, very heartless and wrong if it is not genuine to the issue of closure.
A fair reading of the Burr and Hackbarth letters references my attempts to initiate a Restorative Justice conference with the victim's family. Unfortunately, I was met with negativity and dissuasion from DOC at every attempt and, despite praying my lips off about the situation, nothing ever came of it. Upon reading the guidelines concerning victim-attendance at parole hearings, it is apparent that this is not the sort of situation the parole commission has in mind for the interview since the victim is allowed to speak for five minutes and I am not even allowed to speak or respond. Hardly a restorative communique.
In closing, I would appreciate your prompt reconsideration and/or response to the above. At the very least I should be provided with a recession hearing as mandated by law as soon as feasibly possible.
Thank you kindly for your time and additional attention to this important matter.
Sincerely
Ronald Schilling
Back to Free Ron Schilling main page
No comments:
Post a Comment