25 December 2005
SPIRITUAL RUMINATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION
I've been thinking a great deal about the faith I have in life, and precisely where it is applicable. It's a faith which transcends the physical, compressed world. I've noticed that the more my life seems to be unfair and less pleasant, the more focus I have on matters of spirit. And it has been this way decade after decade after decade in this proverbial closet; that every instance of sorrow and grief has brought me a clearer understanding of God's lighted realm, or the Kingdom of Heaven. I have subsequently come to believe that it is the true point of my life — the only real, lasting and passionate objective. This Divine reality is something I see, something I can feel and touch and know intimately.
Faith is my only true success in life. Everything else is vulnerable to physical interference, to natural catastrophe, to politics, betrayal, greed, jealousy, decay, corruption and loss. And all this — everything — is nothing in the end. The transcendent reality most call God is the only thing completely fulfilling and lasting; everything else is impermanent.
I have talked with many people in prison who consistently report that life is unfair. Admittedly, it is also my experience in this physical reality — especially where the systems of man are concerned — that life is, indeed, unfair. The best I could offer them was to learn from those who have learned to suffer gracefully through the unfairness. Jesus did, and did so in ways that people are still learning from. He demonstrated the impermanence of physical life and the fact that nothing lasts except God and God's Christ — the lighted reality about and in us. Jesus showed people the difference between being in this world and being of it. He demonstrated the failure of the people when crucifying him; by coming back three days later and calmly saying, "Even death is not final in my Father's Kingdom." In God's lighted Kingdom not even death is permanent. Moreover, everything in God's lighted realm is so good, so wonderful and impossibly joyful and free that, by comparison, even the worst and most horrible suffering is small and even trivial.
The book The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis, illustrates the imagery of size. Standing in the area of Heaven he teaches a new soul that all of the physicalness of Earth — all of time and humanity — exists in a tiny crack beneath their feet. Life in this tiny crack is compressed and stifling, whereas the area of Heaven is unbounded and vast. The greatest joy or worst sorrow in worldly life only exists in that little crack of Heaven. Even the death of a newborn baby, the execution of an innocent man, the death of a drug dealer, the starving of millions of people, or the intentional slaughter of millions inert-, or the calamities of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and pandemics which claim even acre millions of lives, all are profoundly negative in the little crack, but that doesn't make them any bigger. It is all part of the little compressed world we inhabit. And most cannot even conceive of the vastneas of the Heavenly realm, nor the Divine freedom of inhabiting that realm. A physical coiiiparieon might be as we gaze through the Hubble telescope and see deeper and deeper into the vastness, and realising what an insignificant pebble this entire planet is. Same thing differentiating Heaven from Earth. Even a quick glimpse of the vastness of Heaven is billions of times more positive than all the negativity on Earth. It's not even close to being balanced because what is positive in the light is infinite and unceasing, whereas the negative is compressed and constantly changing. All of the evils of physical life are but an annoyance with a lifespan of a few seconds — or the twinkling of an eye — in the realm of Heaven.
Heaven is so vast, complete and free, that when some of us experience it there is nothing in the physical compressed world that ever holds much fear for us again. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., called it the "Promised Land." Even when he knew he was going to be assassinated it didn't change his mission because he realized his assassination was trivial after seeing what he saw. Jesus went the same route after realizing his plight. Likewise, once I saw the larger spiritual reality I discovered it is so much larger than the compressed world, of all my hopes and fears it holds no power over me after that point. Jesus illustrated that point when Pontius Pilate screamed at Him, "Don't you know I can crucify you or set you free??," and Jesus replied calmly, "You have no power over me at all." The instruction is not to focus time and energy on the world that does not last. It is not our's.
Same, too, is the situation I have found ciyself in annually with the parole commission. The analogy is profoundly similar where the commission has me looking for the keys to freedom under the bright streetlight instead of in the dark alley where they were actually lost 30+ years hence. Dark or not, even if it takes all night, the alley is the only place where the keys will be found. My keys, my joy, my peace cannot be found in the- mundane world even if I become the wealthiest or most powerful person in the world, or head of the world's largest charity, or the new Gandhi who brings peace to the Middle East. The eternal cannot be found in the mundane. The absolute cannot be found in the relative. It is not mine.
The lighted treasure of Heaven is awaiting each and every one of us, and it is closer than our own breath. It is vital to maintain faith in what is worthy and lasting. I am blessed with the opportunity to know the difference between living in this world but not of it, as Jesus taught. This blessing also incorporates an opportunity to respect and deal responsibly with the problems and limitations of this worldly life without being overwhelmed by them.
And herein lies the only value in separating the worldly arid Divine or, as Jesus put it, "Mammon" and "God." There came a point when I ceased to see or respond to two worlds at all. Jesus said, "When thine eye be single, thy body will be full of light." I awakened to the reality that it is all about Spirit alone; there is no second thing. I discovered the mundane arid compressed world is but a shifting embodiment of the lighted realm. Lewis points out in The- Great Divorce- that once we reach Heaven and look back, we see our lives were never anywhere but in Heaven. Tne whole thing, my life, my tragedies, betrayals, depression and suffering is all like a compressed arid brief moment of annoyance in the realm or God. Likewise, ail of the good times, composing music, creating and writing songs, authoring various writings, inventing numerous gizmos and gadgots, fathering children, knowing love, saving lives, it is all but a product of the minute compressed world. Good or bad, it all amounts to little or nothing in the little crack in the vastness of Heaven.
Interesting, too, that in light of this not only does my future change, but my history changes as well when ray vision clears and I see life for what it really is, as well as for what it is not. I experience this in little ways all the tine. All the senseless ancl unfounded parole deferments since 1987, rendered without consideration of the merits or substance of what I am about today, nor concerned with fairness,or justice; it is all nothing when viewed from such a positive and enlightened state. The past 30+ years of torment is nothing in comparison to the enlightened end of it and, in fact, if the truth were known it probably resulted in my becoming so enlightened. Being betrayed by a so-called Christian woman is nothing in light of the bounty of Heaven. The world falling apart at the seams and about to destroy itself is nothing either.
It is far too easy in this day and age to let the distractions in life take our eye from God. I have made it a high enough priority to where I have the opportunity to walk through this valley of the shadow ol death with a rod and staff that profoundly comfort and empower me. I can be in the world of bad news and decay, but not be of it. I must function in this world, it is my sacred duty to help and comfort and solve problems and make peace and feed as many people as possible on the lighted spiritual realities I have discovered in life. But, still, I do not belong to any of that; it is rnot mine. I belong solely to God. None of that can harm who I really am; it can only affect the material world; it can only effect the part of me that is physical and temporary. That's why Jesus said that what is born of flesh must die of flesh, and we need to be born again in Spirit to find our eternal nature. That is mine. I have found it was right here in front of me all along, always waiting for me to awaken to it.
As this reflects on the faith I find in life, it is not only the most important thing, but the only thing that really matters. It has afforded me strength to stand against the evil and courageously do the right thing. It has strengthened me enough to rise up to the enormous injustice; and corruption in the system; to expose how it can be s0 easily corrupted by the whims of alternate parole commission members who are related tc the victim's families, who don't even have a clue about who I am today, or what transpired the day their relative died; to expose how unfair it is to even allow them to sit in positions of power on the commission and unjustly influence the decision with their vote.
Having said it before, I strive more than most to have the system function fairly and with some semblance of justice, fair-play, compassion and consideration of merit. There appears no consideration to the many people who could benefit in large ways by having me on the streets, working, paying taxes, spreading the message of God's lighted reality through song, and publishing books on the matter, or how the many inventions I could build prototypes for and market would make the lives of many people quite a lot easier. There is no consideration of the many positives this situation presents, because the parole apparatus is inherently entrenched and stuck in the compressed and faithless world; where there is more consideration given to a minor conduct report for not chewing food fast enough with the few teeth I have left.
Back to Free Ron Schilling main page
Monday, December 04, 2006
OCT 06 To Parole Agent Jeff Moylan on denial of parole placement request
27 October 2006
Agent Jeff Moylan
Probation and Parole Office
Box 517
Beaver Dan., WI 53916-0517
Re: PPI revaluation
Dear Mr. Moylan:
I am in receipt of the DOC-7E form denying my pre-parole investigation, and have forwarded copies of same to my prison reform activist friends who have been tracking my progress through the system. I am writing to address concerns over the so-called facts relied upon when rendering the decision to deny said PPI. I believe the matter simply needs to be revisited in light of the true facts. I also have a few comments to make about the rest of the PPI
data.
It is posited that Mr. Jensen and I only know one another "from being cell mates while in the institution," but this is factually not the case. Not only have we been conmunicating vast amounts of information over the years, but Mr. Jensen also knows my family, went to the last family reunion at my Sister's place in Madison with his late Wife, Debra, and my Son, Ronald, Jr. Moreover, my Son lived with Dave and Deb for nearly a decade. There is a history between Mr Jenson and I that goes well beyond prison. And since this was an obvious concern for the agent — and, indeed, the PPI "was denied due to" this alleged fact — I feel the PPI needs to be reassessed in light of these additional facts.
Much is made of the fact that Mr. Jensen has not yet visited me at the institution. What is that, really? That says absolutely nothing relative to my successful reintegration to the community, and is certainly not a sufficient basis for denying a placement in Oshkosh. What is more, we have actually been trying to have him put on my approved visiting list for some time. He was denied the first time because there was incomplete information on the visitor questionaire. Pointedly, where it asked if he had any prior felony convictions he merely wrote something like "yes, robbery 1977," and that he had been off of parole supervision for some time, etc. The social worker at Jackson denied the visiting form, saying he did not list all past offences. I pointed out on appeal that the form (at that time) did not ask for it like that. But the visiting request was denied nonetheless. Not long ago I sent Mr. Jensen yet another visiting form to fill out but I have no idea what the current status of that is. I have not received notice either way. Therefore, since "this was the agent's only concern with the proposed residence and employment I feel the matter should be reassessed in light of these facts, as well.
With regard to the- "conditions" mentioned in the PPI, firstly, it should be known that I have no desire to ever see or contact either of my co-defendants. We have absolutely nothing in common.
Secondly, I can fathom no valid reason why there would be any sort of restriction for traveling to the Sun Prairie and/or Madison area. Granted, my offence was in Dane County, but I attended UW-Madison and have family in Madison who are storing numerous boxes of my property and legal files. Please help me understand your rationale or concerns about my possibly travelling to these areas.
Thirdly, and finally, as regards sobriety, since 12 April 1965 I have maintained absolute sobriety, sans prescribed medications. I am totally and unequivocally anti-alcohol and anti-illicit drugs. I currently take prescription ibuprofen for joint pain, and Hydrochlcrothiazide for blood pressure, and don't even feel good about putting those foreign substances into my body. And I am personally repulsed by even the thought of going into a bar or tavern mainly because by and large they are filled with people lacking many of the commonest sensibilities. Bars and taverns hold no interest for me whatsoever. I appreciate my clarity of mind and am circumspect enough to know that being inebriate cannot be part of my future with all that I have to accomplish. It's as simple as that.
My prison reform activist friends are highly concerned — as am I — that despite offering more than adequate clean, sober and crime-free housing,employment, transportation, food, clothing, and all other necessities in Oshkosh, you would instead attenpt to have me reside in Beaver Dam. As I explained in our 06 July 2006 phone conversation, and as I feel compelled to again document herein, I do not know anyone in Beaver Dam, do not want to know anyone in Beaver Dam, and the only people who know me in Beaver Dam are the victim's relatives.
Everyone feels — as do I — that Beaver Dam is a totally inappropriate placement, not to mention the seriousness of the potentially dangerous ramifications which could possibly manifest. Since you have been made aware of it, you should be apprised of your own personal liability should something occur, like the victim's relatives coming at me with aggression in their hearts. Why would you want to force me into a situation like that? You sounded like a refreshingly decent Parole Agent when I spoke with you on the phone, and I thought you understood the potential seriousness of forcing me to move into that area. Friends have informed me that a search of the family tree geneology revealed the victim's relatives are scattered all over that area. And, so, I again suggest that Oshkosh would be a much more appropriate placement.
One last point here before closing. While I understand the need for some prisoners to require State-sponsored or DOC-contracted rooms at some motel, and food stanps, and such, I find it distasteful and an enormous waste for someone on my situation because I have no need for it. And I seriously hope it is not your intent to force me into such a detestable situation. Those resources would better be utilized for prisoners who genuinely need them. I have perfectly ample support for everything in Oshkosh.
In closing, I pray you will contact the agent in Oshkosh and reevaluate the matter with all due scrutiny through a more compassionate lens. I would appreciate having an approved PPI for my next parole review in December.
I thank you kindly for your continued attention and assistance with the above important matters.
Sincerely,
Ron Schilling #332219
Oakhill Corr. Inst.
Box 938
Oregon, Wi 53575
Back to Free Ron Schilling main page
Agent Jeff Moylan
Probation and Parole Office
Box 517
Beaver Dan., WI 53916-0517
Re: PPI revaluation
Dear Mr. Moylan:
I am in receipt of the DOC-7E form denying my pre-parole investigation, and have forwarded copies of same to my prison reform activist friends who have been tracking my progress through the system. I am writing to address concerns over the so-called facts relied upon when rendering the decision to deny said PPI. I believe the matter simply needs to be revisited in light of the true facts. I also have a few comments to make about the rest of the PPI
data.
It is posited that Mr. Jensen and I only know one another "from being cell mates while in the institution," but this is factually not the case. Not only have we been conmunicating vast amounts of information over the years, but Mr. Jensen also knows my family, went to the last family reunion at my Sister's place in Madison with his late Wife, Debra, and my Son, Ronald, Jr. Moreover, my Son lived with Dave and Deb for nearly a decade. There is a history between Mr Jenson and I that goes well beyond prison. And since this was an obvious concern for the agent — and, indeed, the PPI "was denied due to" this alleged fact — I feel the PPI needs to be reassessed in light of these additional facts.
Much is made of the fact that Mr. Jensen has not yet visited me at the institution. What is that, really? That says absolutely nothing relative to my successful reintegration to the community, and is certainly not a sufficient basis for denying a placement in Oshkosh. What is more, we have actually been trying to have him put on my approved visiting list for some time. He was denied the first time because there was incomplete information on the visitor questionaire. Pointedly, where it asked if he had any prior felony convictions he merely wrote something like "yes, robbery 1977," and that he had been off of parole supervision for some time, etc. The social worker at Jackson denied the visiting form, saying he did not list all past offences. I pointed out on appeal that the form (at that time) did not ask for it like that. But the visiting request was denied nonetheless. Not long ago I sent Mr. Jensen yet another visiting form to fill out but I have no idea what the current status of that is. I have not received notice either way. Therefore, since "this was the agent's only concern with the proposed residence and employment I feel the matter should be reassessed in light of these facts, as well.
With regard to the- "conditions" mentioned in the PPI, firstly, it should be known that I have no desire to ever see or contact either of my co-defendants. We have absolutely nothing in common.
Secondly, I can fathom no valid reason why there would be any sort of restriction for traveling to the Sun Prairie and/or Madison area. Granted, my offence was in Dane County, but I attended UW-Madison and have family in Madison who are storing numerous boxes of my property and legal files. Please help me understand your rationale or concerns about my possibly travelling to these areas.
Thirdly, and finally, as regards sobriety, since 12 April 1965 I have maintained absolute sobriety, sans prescribed medications. I am totally and unequivocally anti-alcohol and anti-illicit drugs. I currently take prescription ibuprofen for joint pain, and Hydrochlcrothiazide for blood pressure, and don't even feel good about putting those foreign substances into my body. And I am personally repulsed by even the thought of going into a bar or tavern mainly because by and large they are filled with people lacking many of the commonest sensibilities. Bars and taverns hold no interest for me whatsoever. I appreciate my clarity of mind and am circumspect enough to know that being inebriate cannot be part of my future with all that I have to accomplish. It's as simple as that.
My prison reform activist friends are highly concerned — as am I — that despite offering more than adequate clean, sober and crime-free housing,employment, transportation, food, clothing, and all other necessities in Oshkosh, you would instead attenpt to have me reside in Beaver Dam. As I explained in our 06 July 2006 phone conversation, and as I feel compelled to again document herein, I do not know anyone in Beaver Dam, do not want to know anyone in Beaver Dam, and the only people who know me in Beaver Dam are the victim's relatives.
Everyone feels — as do I — that Beaver Dam is a totally inappropriate placement, not to mention the seriousness of the potentially dangerous ramifications which could possibly manifest. Since you have been made aware of it, you should be apprised of your own personal liability should something occur, like the victim's relatives coming at me with aggression in their hearts. Why would you want to force me into a situation like that? You sounded like a refreshingly decent Parole Agent when I spoke with you on the phone, and I thought you understood the potential seriousness of forcing me to move into that area. Friends have informed me that a search of the family tree geneology revealed the victim's relatives are scattered all over that area. And, so, I again suggest that Oshkosh would be a much more appropriate placement.
One last point here before closing. While I understand the need for some prisoners to require State-sponsored or DOC-contracted rooms at some motel, and food stanps, and such, I find it distasteful and an enormous waste for someone on my situation because I have no need for it. And I seriously hope it is not your intent to force me into such a detestable situation. Those resources would better be utilized for prisoners who genuinely need them. I have perfectly ample support for everything in Oshkosh.
In closing, I pray you will contact the agent in Oshkosh and reevaluate the matter with all due scrutiny through a more compassionate lens. I would appreciate having an approved PPI for my next parole review in December.
I thank you kindly for your continued attention and assistance with the above important matters.
Sincerely,
Ron Schilling #332219
Oakhill Corr. Inst.
Box 938
Oregon, Wi 53575
Back to Free Ron Schilling main page
Ron's Parole Placement Request Denied
Ron Schilling has a detailed parole plan which includes living with a long time friend, David Jensen, in Oshkosh. Below is the letter from Mr Jensen and the Parole investigation report denying the request.
1)
from:MR. DAVID JENSEN
27 Lake Street, Oshkosh, WI. 54901
July 13,2006
Dear Wisconsin Parole Commission,
This letter is in regard to Mr. Ronald Schilling and his forth coming Parole Hearing.
I am writing to inform you and verify that Mr. Schilling has a place of residence with me at the address listed above.
It is equally important that the Commission be aware I will also help Mr. Schilling with food, clothing, and transportation to help him make his scheduled Parole Officer Meetings, as well as help him get to various local businesses to apply for work
I have been in business since 1992 and I intend to put Mr. Schilling to work for my business at least on a part time basis until he can find suitable work at a wage that can sustain him.
I have known Mr. Schilling since 1977 and am fully aware of his situation. I will do everything I possibly can to help him become a productive member of society and give him the support most men need when moving from an institutional setting to living in a free society. Over the years I have seen Ron go through and make many positive changes and hope that you will seriously consider him for release.
Thank you for your time and concern in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Jensen
2) scanned from Document called "Pre Parole Investigation"
see item under " comments" for reason for denial of request.
DCC Beaver Dam
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Division of Community Corrections DOC-7E (Rev. 11/97)
WISCONSIN PRE-PAROLE INVESTIGATION
OFFENDER NAME Ronald S Schilling.
DOC NUMBER 032219
PROPOSED RESIDENCE 27 Lake Street; Oshkosh, WI54901 ; alternative plan: Grand View Motel If needed: 1808 N. Center St. (DOC contracted rooms)
PROPOSED JOB: A-l Mobile Transport
PROPOSED SCHOOL PLAN: N/A
AGENT REFERRALS AND/OR COMMUNITY RESOURCES
If unable to obtain immediate employment with A-l Mobile Transportation, he will be required to complete a Job Search log each week. This includes contacting a minimum of 9 potential employers and completing needed paperwork. Will fill out application at Personal Resources and Qualitemps in Beaver Dam for potential full-time employment.
COMMUNITY ISSUES /WARRANTS PENDING
If Mr. Schilling is in need of support with AOD issues or with mental health issues, he will be referred to Dodge County Human Services.
Should report to the Human Services Department located at 143 E. Center St. in Juneau where he can apply for food stamps and help with transportation.
No known issues. No known warrants pending.
RECOMMENDED PAROLE CONDITIONS
1.) no contact with Thomas Stanton or Robert Zelenka.
2)Not be in or around the Sun Prairie/Madison area without Agent approval.
3)) Absolute sobriety. No bars, taverns, or liquor stores.
COMMENTS
Mr. Shilling proposed to live with David P. Jensen, the owner of A-l Mobile Transport, who lives in Oshkosh. A residence check was completed by an agent from that region and was denied due to Mr. Shilling and Mr. Jensen only knowing each other from being cell mates while in the institution. The agent had concerns with the fact that Mr. Jensen had not gone to the institution to visit with Mr. Shilling, and that they only had contact through writing letters to each other. This was the agent's only concern with the proposed residence and employment.
As far as this agent is aware .Mr. Schilling does not have any other support, as far as family or friends, in this area that may be utilized for help with a residence or employment.
If needed, obtain WI ID and Social Security Card.
date submitted 10-16-06
Back to Free Ron Schilling main page and Click on next post (Oct 06 to Parole Agent Moylan) at side bar for Ron's reply
1)
from:MR. DAVID JENSEN
27 Lake Street, Oshkosh, WI. 54901
July 13,2006
Dear Wisconsin Parole Commission,
This letter is in regard to Mr. Ronald Schilling and his forth coming Parole Hearing.
I am writing to inform you and verify that Mr. Schilling has a place of residence with me at the address listed above.
It is equally important that the Commission be aware I will also help Mr. Schilling with food, clothing, and transportation to help him make his scheduled Parole Officer Meetings, as well as help him get to various local businesses to apply for work
I have been in business since 1992 and I intend to put Mr. Schilling to work for my business at least on a part time basis until he can find suitable work at a wage that can sustain him.
I have known Mr. Schilling since 1977 and am fully aware of his situation. I will do everything I possibly can to help him become a productive member of society and give him the support most men need when moving from an institutional setting to living in a free society. Over the years I have seen Ron go through and make many positive changes and hope that you will seriously consider him for release.
Thank you for your time and concern in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Jensen
2) scanned from Document called "Pre Parole Investigation"
see item under " comments" for reason for denial of request.
DCC Beaver Dam
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Division of Community Corrections DOC-7E (Rev. 11/97)
WISCONSIN PRE-PAROLE INVESTIGATION
OFFENDER NAME Ronald S Schilling.
DOC NUMBER 032219
PROPOSED RESIDENCE 27 Lake Street; Oshkosh, WI54901 ; alternative plan: Grand View Motel If needed: 1808 N. Center St. (DOC contracted rooms)
PROPOSED JOB: A-l Mobile Transport
PROPOSED SCHOOL PLAN: N/A
AGENT REFERRALS AND/OR COMMUNITY RESOURCES
If unable to obtain immediate employment with A-l Mobile Transportation, he will be required to complete a Job Search log each week. This includes contacting a minimum of 9 potential employers and completing needed paperwork. Will fill out application at Personal Resources and Qualitemps in Beaver Dam for potential full-time employment.
COMMUNITY ISSUES /WARRANTS PENDING
If Mr. Schilling is in need of support with AOD issues or with mental health issues, he will be referred to Dodge County Human Services.
Should report to the Human Services Department located at 143 E. Center St. in Juneau where he can apply for food stamps and help with transportation.
No known issues. No known warrants pending.
RECOMMENDED PAROLE CONDITIONS
1.) no contact with Thomas Stanton or Robert Zelenka.
2)Not be in or around the Sun Prairie/Madison area without Agent approval.
3)) Absolute sobriety. No bars, taverns, or liquor stores.
COMMENTS
Mr. Shilling proposed to live with David P. Jensen, the owner of A-l Mobile Transport, who lives in Oshkosh. A residence check was completed by an agent from that region and was denied due to Mr. Shilling and Mr. Jensen only knowing each other from being cell mates while in the institution. The agent had concerns with the fact that Mr. Jensen had not gone to the institution to visit with Mr. Shilling, and that they only had contact through writing letters to each other. This was the agent's only concern with the proposed residence and employment.
As far as this agent is aware .Mr. Schilling does not have any other support, as far as family or friends, in this area that may be utilized for help with a residence or employment.
If needed, obtain WI ID and Social Security Card.
date submitted 10-16-06
Back to Free Ron Schilling main page and Click on next post (Oct 06 to Parole Agent Moylan) at side bar for Ron's reply
2006 -Parole Granted and Wisked Away
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)