PAROLE BOARD DENIALS AND SOME OF THE

FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR THE PAROLE BOARD

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

In order to find out how and the reasons why the Nevada Parole Board is not

paroling more inmates to their next consecutive sentence and or to the street we need to

drill down into the Parole Board to find out these answers.

The unchecked discretionary power of the NV Parole Board is the main issue that

has created the mass incarceration industry that exists in Nevada. Until the legislature

takes responsibility for mandatory minimum sentencing laws and the NV Parole Board’s

actions by creating mandatory statuary language for the release of prisoners plus defined

timed release mechanisms that set specific release time in law, mass incarceration will

perpetuate.

Parole Board denials result in inmates serving more time and costing the taxpayers

millions of dollars each year. We need to look at the following to have a better

understanding for the denials and ways to fix the problems so that the Parole Board will

grant more paroles and save the taxpayers millions of dollars per year.

If you take a look at Attachments I have provided to you it will answer some of

questions and concerns that have been raised during the ACAJ committee hearings.

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INMATES FILES;

NOTIS File aka Nevada Offender Tracking Information System – Attachment 1

This files contains the Inmates Summary from the time the inmate enters the Department

of Corrections and when the inmate leaves the Department of Corrections.

NOTIS reflects the inmate’s “Offense in Custody History”, “Result of Offense”,

“External Movement History”, “Move Type”, “Move Reason”, “prior felony

convictions/hold & detainers”, “Case Notes”.

The “Case Notes” would include the following;

Disciplinary charges, hearings and decisions, investigations, Inspector General’s Office

investigation, Grievances, Parole and Release information, telephone communications

between the inmate and their attorney, telephone communications between the inmate’s

pro se class action litigation with other pro se inmate Plaintiff s, religious practices,

education, programming, charitable fundraisers, health and medical history, enemy list.

It should be noted that when NOTIS was installed on June 5, 2007 for some unknown

reason the NOTIS documents begin with year 01/14/1999, thereby, missing the previous

IF THE RISK IS LOW ---- LET THEM GO

10 years of Mr. Klein’s incarceration. Why? And WHAT does “RESTRICTED CASE

NOTES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS REPORT” mean and why are they

removed?

It is uncertain at this time if other inmates NOTIS files are similar to Mr. Klein’s NOTIS

file and if the information that is favorable or unfavorable to the inmate is missing, too.

It should be noted that there appears to be ongoing problems with NOTIS

http://parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q3-

FY2015_Jan-Mar.pdf Board of Parole Commissioners

Quarterly Report January 1, 2015 – March 31, 2015 (Q3 – FY15)

Page 14

“The NDOC NOTIS database was not available at the time of the hearing

or a database issue resulted in a lack of access to information necessary to

conduct the hearing or make an action recommendation.”

NOTIS Inmate Issue History - Attachment 2

This file contains “Issue ID”, “Date Reported”, “Issue Type”, Issue Reason”, inmate’s

grievances, Settlement Agreements,

It should be noted that NOTIS begins with year 02/05/1999, thereby, missing the

previous 10 years of Mr. Klein’s incarceration.

Inmate I-files – Attachment 3

This file contains Parole Board confidential information, PSI reports which are prepared

for the original Court that follow the inmate throughout their entire prison sentence and

are nearly impossible to correct, dispute or change, Parole and Probation Data, Physic

Panel, and the entire history of the inmate while incarcerated.

Confidential Files- These files are completely confidential and the inmate is not able

to access any information to check for accuracies. Unless the inmate has pending

litigation against the state and the court has ordered confidential information to be turned

over, then and only then will the inmate see his file.

Inspector general Files – Attachment 4

These files are completely confidential. At times the Investigative Reports are not

followed through to the end. When this happens, irreparable harm to the inmate and

others connected to the investigation result in punishment being imposed.

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

At times when this happens the inmate will file litigation against NDOC and the inmate

will then have access to his files.

NOTIS INMATE GRIEVANCE REPORT; Attachment 5

Grievances are filed by Inmates. The inmate’s grievances will go through a process by a

member of the Nevada Department of Corrections. If the inmate loses he can appeal to a

higher level and at times will take their grievance to court for violation of their protected

rights. This information is provided to the Parole Board, however, the litigation brought

against NDOC is not given to the Parole Board, nor the final judgment if the inmates win.

Grievances procedures fall under the Administrative Regulation 740 that is set by the

Nevada Board of Prison Commissioners.

DISCIPLINARY; Attachments 6, 1

Inmates can be disciplined and disciplinary actions can be imposed.

a. Disciplinary actions can result in such things as being transferred to

another institution, being placed in segregated Unit, being locked up in

isolation, denied visitation, and credits that are used towards an early

parole hearing(s) to be taken away. Disciplinary actions can lead to

litigation.

b. Retaliatory behavior by NDOC employees can result in Disciplinary

actions without proper Due Process.

c. Disciplinary actions are factored in when determining to grant or deny a

parole.

d. Untrained officers, retaliatory behavior by NDOC Staff, are a major

concern for the need of a NDOC Independent Ombudsman.

e. To reduce the amount of monies the taxpayer is paying for litigation to

defend these types of lawsuits filed by the inmate(s) is a major concern for

the taxpayer.

LITIGATION; Attachment 7

The inmate can file a suit against the NDOC and its employees for what he or she

believes violated their protected rights

a. The grievances and disciplinary actions against the inmate remain in the

NDOC and NOTIS files and then are submitted to the Parole Board.

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

b. An inmate who files suit against NDOC and wins; the outcome is not

reflected in the NDOC or NOTIS files that are submitted to the Parole

Board.

c. Breach of Settlement Agreement and ongoing litigation are not reflected in

the NDOC or NOTIS files that are submitted to the Parole Board.

RETALIATION; Attachment 8 At times some NDOC employees will retaliate

against an inmate or inmates for filing suit against them or somebody they personally

know.

Some NDOC employees will retaliate against an inmate just to cause problems for the

inmate.

a. NDOC and its employee’s retaliation can result in a transfer of an inmate

to another institution, being placed in segregated Unit, being locked up in

isolation, losing their jobs, loss of their credits to an early parole hearing,

having their religious protected property destroyed, denied visitation from

their loved ones and their attorney, and interference with receiving their

medical treatment.

SEGREGATION; Attachment 9

Inmates who are placed in a NDOC segregated Unit for the following reasons will lose

credit time and this can play a factor in Parole Board denials. Removed to after in

a. Transfers

b. Enemy List

c. Retaliation by NDOC staff

d. Court order

e. Investigation(s)

f. Disciplinary sanctions

g. Medical treatment

h. refused to sign a waiver

MEDICAL; Inmates who are normally incarcerated at the Northern Nevada

Correctional Center, or are transferred from another Institution for medical treatment to

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

the Regional Medical Facility located at NNCC, or have on going medical problems and

cannot go out into the general population are placed in a NDOC segregated Unit.

a. These Inmates do not receive any credit(s) to be used towards an early

parole Board hearing that is normally afforded to other inmates who are

not in need of medical treatment. These Inmates serve day per day for

simply needing medical treatment.

COMPUTER GLITCH; Attachment 10, Attachment 13

On June 5, 2007 the NDOC NOTIS software was installed and when it was installed it

“flipped” and placed false felony charges in inmates files. This information was

disseminated to the Parole Board and Pardons Board and still remains and is

unbeknownst to the inmate.

a. check for accuracies and question the inmate about any new felony

charges after they have entered the prison system that appears in the

NDOC NOTIS files. Ask questions about any disciplinary charges and

see if the inmate has litigation pending and the result of any litigation.

b. Allow the inmate to introduce evidence that disputes any of the new

charges or disciplinary charges against them. .

c. check for any false Information in NDOC inmate PSI Report, “I” File

(Institutional File), “C” File (Central File), Confidential File and NOTIS:

d. Correct and Remove all false and inaccurate documents still remaining in

the inmate files, Inspector General, parole board and Pardons Board Files,

e. Define specifically the deadly weapon used in the PSI report. Take out the

extra words

PAROLE AND PARDONS: REPORT REQUIREMENTS ; Attachment 11,

Attachment 17, Attachment 18,

http://doc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/docnvgov/content/About/Administrative_Regulatio

ns/AR%20537%20-%20052010.pdf Nevada Department of Corrections

Administrative Regulations 537.02. The Parole Board has held a parole hearing(s)

when no Progress Report and Related Release Documents have been submitted to the

Parole Board, the inmate is then seen in absentia and the inmate is denied a parole.

Parole Board violates inmate’s Due Process, by the Parole Board retaliating against

inmate because of prior suits against them. This leads to litigation.

PSYCH PANEL; Attachment 12 remove be between to and grant 4th

line below

IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO

Nevada Department of Corrections Administrative Regulation 537.03 Prior to the

Legislative removal of the Psych Panel an Inmate who was convicted of a sexual offense

must pass the Psych Panel. The inmate must be certified that they have passed the Psych

Panel in order for the Parole Board to (-be) grant their Parole. The Psych Panel decision

is submitted to the Parole Board. The Psych Panel report still exists in the inmates file.

The Psych Panel has raised Risk Assessment to a higher level because of the inmate’s

refusal to attend the evaluation based on his litigation.

a. It is common knowledge that an inmate who has maintained their

innocence must admit guilt in order to pass the Psych Panel. This forces

an innocent person to make a false confession in order to get a chance at

their freedom.

b. If an inmate is appealing their criminal conviction and their conviction is

overturned, this could be detrimental to any future new trial they have

been granted by the court, because , they have now made a false

confession to the Psych Panel in order to seek their freedom through the

Parole Board and the prosecution can use it.

c. Remove the inmate’s certification(s) that he or she has passed the Psych

Panel from the Parole Board and Pardons Board files.

d. Removal all notes, and all information regarding any decisions that pertain

to the inmate appealing their conviction from the Parole Board’s file on

the inmate.

INMATE’S CONCERNS REGARDING PAROLE BOARD DENIALS WHEN

THEIR PREVIOUS PAROLE WAS GRANTED TO THEIR NEXT

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE, THEY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE , ARE

DISCIPLINARY FREE, A MODEL PRISONER AND ARE NOW BEING

DENIED A PAROLE WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS! Attachment 13,

Attachment 7

a. Inmate has not completed his programming,

b. Is a threat to society.

c. based on new information,

d. “has an Appeal pending” 2007 AB 510.

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

e. The seriousness of the offense,“nature of crime”, and “abnormal nature of

crime”

f. Psych Panel changed the inmate’s risk assessment to a high risk to re-

offend.

g. was not certified by the Psych Panel when previously certified and nothing

has warranted not to be certified.

h. life sentence w/parole- denied to EXPIRATION aka when inmate dies

h. June 5, 2007 computer glitch and the “NDOC NOTIS database was not

available at the time of the hearing or a database issue resulted in a lack of

access to information necessary to conduct the hearing or make an action

recommendation.” Tab ?? pg. 14 Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly

Report January 1, 2015- March 31, 2015 (Q3-FY15)

AGGREGATED SENTENCES - Attachment 14

VICTIM(S) verses INMATES RIGHT TO RECEIVE A FAIR PAROLE

HEARING. Attachment 15 . CREW BROTHERS’ INFORMATION

Victim’s Testimony: a. Inmates who have victim opposition appearing at their Parole Board Hearings

are more likely to be denied parole than inmates who do not.

b. Victim’s are instructed by the Parole Board in writing, how to have a private

meeting with the Board and keep their testimony and documents secret. (15-1)

(Parole Board Letter to victim and family)

c. During parole hearings if the victim, family or friends request time to speak,

the hearing room is cleared including the inmate. The victim’s testimony,

given directly to the Board without the inmate’s knowledge or any oversight,

opens the door to the possibility the parole board’s decision may be based on

false testimony that the inmate or his representative have no opportunity to

refute resulting in an unfair parole hearing.

d. Transparency has been extinguished for parole hearings especially regarding

victim testimony and documents because the Board claims NOT to be under

quasi-judicial standards or the Open Meeting Law. In Witherow (Pgs. 1, 14

and 15) the NV Supreme Court (NSC) provided four required practices and

proceedures of Quasi-Judicial Standards:

1. the ability to present and object to evidence

2.. the ability to cross examine witnesses

3. a written decision from the public body

4. an opportunity to appeal to a higher authority

e. Witherow, (Id. Pg. 16) NSC states,”. . .because the parole hearing does not

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

afford each party the minimum . . .[four quasi-judicial standards]”. . . .

“. . . a parole board hearing is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the Board

must comply with the open meeting law when conducting such hearings.”

THEN the parole board was declared to be Quasi-Judicial by the NV

Legislature. In so doing the law was established that the Quasi-Judicial \

standards setforth in Witherow should apply as standard procedures for Parole

Board Hearings.

BUT WAIT the NV Parole Board fails to follow any of the standards established by the

NSC regarding quasi-judicial government bodies. The Board claims they are quasi-

judicial in name only and entitled to disregard the quasi-judicial standards in their

day-to-day operation and parole hearings. The Board also has claimed exclusion from

following the Open Meeting Law which applies to all other state agencies and boards;

except the legislature and judicial divisions of government. Prior to 2001 the Parole

Board operated under the Open Meeting Law. The Board changed their Operating

Procedure Manual in 2001 without any legislative direction, labeling themselves

“open and public” in its operation including parole hearings. After five legislative

sessions of PB Analysis David Smith testifying repeatedly, the Parole Board was exempt

from the O.M.L., Assemblyman and Judicial Committee Chair Bernie Anderson told

Smith during one of Smith’s testimonies, “We are not going to codify what you [Parole

Board] are doing.” The NSC has rendered many decisions changing positions on how the

Board is to operate. Now, the Board leans on its interpretation of NRS 213 to justify its

actions of being the ONLY Board (agency) in NV exempt from both the quasi-judicial

standards and the Open Meeting Law. The Parole Board of NV is not TRANSPARENT

and answers to no-one except the Governor every four years when their reappointment is

almost always renewed without any visible questioning.

The inmate has no way of knowing and is unable to defend him or herself from any false

and inaccurate information that has been provided to the Parole Board by the victim(s).

Parole Board Oversight committee

Parole Board’s Guidelines: ATTACHMENT 16 CREW BROTHERS INFO

a. The current Board’s Guidelines contain the recommendation to “Consider

Factors”. There is no recommended action or direction provided on the ,

“Consider Factor Worksheet” for the Board to follow in granting or denying

parole. The majority of cases heard by the Board fall into the “Consider

Factors”category. Therefore, for most of its cases the Parole Board has no

objective direction to follow, as required by NRS 213.10885.

b. The Parole Board’s Objective Risk Assessment Worksheet has both mitigating

(Inmate able to change) and aggravating or static (not ever changing) items

listed. On Im. Russell Crew’s 2014 P.B. Objective Risk Assessment Worksheet

the Parole Board scored him one point, which identified him, as“low risk to

reoffend. Of all the mitigating factors, which Russell has the power to change

the only one unchecked was work release program, which his sentence does

IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO

not allow. Only one aggregating factor was selected out of the many on the

Board’s form, “nature of crime”, which is static and unchanging. Russell was

only 19 years old when this crime was committed.

The Parole Board’s sole use of a static factor as their sole reason for denial of parole

causes many of the repeated denials of parole.

(Aging Inmate article excerpt from Harwood Parole Board Chair New York) (16-1)

RAPP New York Release Aging Project, “The age group, elderly (over 50) cost triple to

incarcerate…”

(16-1)

VIOLATING INMATE(S) DUE PROCESS TO RECEIVE A PAROLE HEARING

AND REVOCATIONS BY THE PAROLE BOARD LEADS TO LITIGATION

Attachment 17

a. Violating inmates Due Process leads to litigation against the State’s

agencies.

b. Retaliation against Inmate’s Constitutional Rights who seeks redress

through appeals and the Courts .

c. Litigation, Breach of Settlement Agreement and ongoing litigation against

the Parole Board is not reflected in the Parole Board files for any new

future Commissioner(s) to review. The new Commissioners will refer to

the Parole Board’s previous decision and will not know that the Parole

Board had violated the inmate’s rights.

INMATE LITIGATION AGAINST THE PAROLE BOARD : Attachment 18

It is an interesting fact that the inmates who have litigated against the Parole

Board have received numerous parole denials for many years, which seems to go against

the common sense evaluation of the Parole Board’s Objective Risk assessment for those

inmates, who score “low risk to reoffend”.

b. Inmate litigators who received multiple parole denials:

take out Nolan or reorder

1. Nolan Klein, died in prison after 21 years of claiming his innocence and

successfully litigating. Through litigation in Nolan 2004 Klein v

Crawford Inmate Klein was offered on June 5, 2007 a parole if he would

drop his current suit against the Parole Board, he declined. The Parole

revoked his previous granted paroles that had already expired years earlier

IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO

to place him back on to his 1st life sentence. (Parole Board letter to Klein

(18-1)

Klein next parole hearing was held on September 27, 2007. At which time

the Parole Board had Klein escorted down to the parole Board hearing.

Klein informed them that he was appealing their previous decision in the

Klein v Crawford case. A progress Report was not submitted to the Parole

Board as per required by the Administrative Regulation. Klein was seen

in abstention and his parole was denied.

Klein filed a letter with the Parole Board Chairman Dorla Salling. Klein

was denied a parole.

Replace then with filed

In 2008, Klein’s then suit in Klein v Bisbee. Tab. Klein died while his

case was pending.

2. Jesse Anderson vs: Connie Bisbee, his Court Order Feb. 24, 2016:

“Defendant may proceed with claim against Bisbee on 14th

Amendment

Rights”. Although this is a parole revocation case the Court still has

found that the inmate has standing against Chairman Bisbee.

3. Norman Crew was paroled in 1996 by a previous parole board from a life

and its use enhancement after 15 yrs of incarceration with Williams

goodtime credits correctly applied. In 2006 he won his lawsuit against the

Parole Board (18-2) and was deemed eligible for parole custody to

the streets, 3/2008. He has now served 20+ years on his 2nd

life and its use

with repeated P.B. Objective Risk Assessments rating him as “low risk to

reoffend” but the static unchangeable “nature of crime” is always listed as

reason for denial. Since winning his lawsuit against the P.B. he has been

repeatedly denied parole with the maximum allowable by law 3yr.“dump”

wait period before future hearings.

4. Russell Crew’s parole in 1995 from a previous Board has satisfied his 1st

life and its use enhancement by actions of both Parole and Pardon’s Boards.

In 2007 Russell won his lawsuit against the Parole Board. (18-3)

According to Russell ‘s Court Order he has been eligible for parole custody

to the streets since 9/2007. Russell’s parole hearing denials mirror his

brother, Norman’s set forth in #2 above.

a. Russell Crew filed Open Meeting Law litigation against the Parole

Board.

Note: P.B. Chair Bisbee has stated she won’t apply any goodtime credits to Norman’s or

Russell’s sentences because of her interpretation of recent legislative intent even though

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

Norman’s sentence began in 1981 and Russell’s in 1983 under Williams and their Ct.

Orders (18-2 and 18- 3) reaffirms their sentences are to be reduced by goodtime credits

per Williams. In a letter Bisbee wrote “Norman and Russell had to serve 40 years

minimum or flat before they would be eligible for parole.” (18-4) According to

Chairman Bisbee’s “40 yr. flat statement” the parole hearings the Board holds for them

every three years, are for appearances only. What the Board is doing is just to satisfy the

law requirement, but not actually considering them for real parole to the community.

Norman and Russell have at least 10 years each of goodtime that Bisbee refuses to apply

to their sentences. Took out reduce

4. Robert Stockmier

5. Brian Kamadula (18-5 Ct. Order)

PAROLE BOARD DENIES INMATES WHO MAINTAIN INNOCENCE.

Inmates have been informed by the Nevada Parole Board Commissioners that unless you

admit guilt and remorse, you will not be granted a parole to the street, or unless you stop

appealing your conviction you will not be paroled to the street.

a. Over the years studies on wrongful convictions through eyewitness

identification have been presented to the Advisory Commission on the

Administration of Justice. There is a need in Nevada to have a Public

Integrity Commission Unit established to look into wrongful convictions.

b. 80% - 90% of the applications the Rocky Mountain Innocent Project

receives are declined because the applicant has no DNA available to test.

In some cases, the Nevada Courts are denying Petitioners (inmates) (DNA

testing to even be conducted.) (to even conduct testing on their own

DNA) change words around to clearer meaning

c. Tonja Brown, Advocate for the Innocent, presented to the 2016 Advisory

Commission on the Administration of Justice information as to why

Nevada needs to establish a PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT COMMISSION

to look into wrongful convictions.

By establishing a commission to look into wrongful convictions, it will

reduce the prison population, it will reduce the cost to incarcerate them. It

will lessen the Parole Board hearing’s Agenda. This will save the

taxpayers money and result in freedom for the innocent.

CREDITS; When credits are misapplied it results in more time the inmate must serve

on their sentence and a longer period of time for them to be seen by the Parole Board.

See the legislative discussion

IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Minutes/Senate/JUD/Final/682.pdf

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Senate/JUD/SJUD682H.pdf

2015 ASSEMBLY BILL 267 Attachment 19-- Crimes being committed under the age

of 18.

a. Inmates who have committed crimes under the 2015 Assembly Bill 267

are being denied parole and have been disciplinary free for years and even

decades.

b. Inmates who have committed one crime of sexual assault have several (4)

consecutive life sentences for the one and only sexual assault.

c. Studies have concluded that the male brain does not mature until the

approximate age of 25 years of age. The person they were 20, 30, 40

years ago, in most cases, are not the same person now as they were then.

Inmates who committed crimes under the age of 25 years old Research that has been

presented to the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice has shown that

the male brain matures at approximately 25 years of age.

a. The Parole Board is aware of the research on those convicted of murder

and the recidivism rate for murder is low to reoffend.

b. The Parole Board continues to deny inmates with (1-5) life sentences

parole. Some of these individuals have been disciplinary free for years,

have completed their programming, completed their their education and in

some cases even received degrees and are still being denied parole.

c. California has increased the age to 23 yrs of age and under when the crime

was committed, for consideration for parole release.

WAYS TO IMPROVE THE PAROLE BOARD GRANTING MORE PAROLES .

a. Remove all prior sex offenders Psych Panel information from the Parole Board

files and Pardons Board files,

b. 2007 AB 510 “In determining whether to grant parole to a prisoner, the Board

shall not consider whether the prisoner has appealed the judgment of imprisonment for

which the prisoner is being considered for parole.”

Remove all prior Parole Board denials notes and decisions that show the inmate has an

appeal pending.

IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO

c. Check for accuracies from any new charges in the NOTIS and discuss it with

inmate that is appearing before the Parole Board Commissioners .

d. Check for resolutions to any litigation filed and won by an inmate. This would

include the removal of any disciplinary action in the inmates NDOC I-File, NDOC C-

File, NDOC Confidential Files, Inspector General’s Files, Chrono Entries for Inmate.

e. Check for resolutions to any litigation filed by an inmate who has filed litigation

against the Parole Board for violating his or her Due Process, and the outcome of such

litigation to be acknowledged publicly during the Parole Board hearing proceedings, and

the litigation win to remain in the Parole Board files of such Due Process violation.

f. All Inmates must see their files and reports case worker that have submitted

documents to the parole board and check for accuracies, allow the Inmate to produce any

new information to be able to support the correct accuracies and have this new

information remain in the NDOC and the Parole Board files.

g. The Parole Board must define exactly their reason for a Parole Board denial

and ways for the inmate to improve in order to be granted a parole.

1. Russell Crew’s 2014 Parole Denial recommended he stay discipline free, a

mitigating factor that he can control, to be considered for parole in the next three years.

This direction seems nonsensical and useless because the only aggregating factor noted

by the Board to deny parole is “nature of offense” which is STATIC and unchanging.

h. Put a twenty year maximum sentence that the inmate must serve on a life

sentence given with (-a) (-5 to) (- life with) the possibility of parole, and a maximum of

no more than 5 years on the second life sentence, third life sentence, fourth life sentence,

and fifth life sentence.

i. Provide funding for Nevada 2011 Senate Bill 201 that established an Ombudsman

under the Attorney General’s Office.

j. Establish an Independent Ombudsman for NDOC.

k. Dissolve the Parole Board and conform to federal guidelines for parole.

l. Establishing an Oversight Committee for the Parole Board.

m. Establishing a PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT COMMISSION to look into

wrongful convictions, it will reduce the prison population, it will reduce the cost to

incarcerate them. It will lessen the Parole Board hearing’s Agenda. This will save the

taxpayers money and result in freedom for the innocent.

IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO

These denials cost the taxpayers money at an average cost of $40,000,000.00 per year.

Denials are leading to more years added to the inmate’s incarceration and civil litigation

costs each year at an expense to the taxpayer.

“The continued imprisonment of a group of people who have significantly aged out of

crime, who pose little public safety risk and could in fact contribute to our communities,

expresses clearly the revenge principle. Many long-termers convicted of serious crimes,

people who constitute the bulk of the over fifty prison population, have taken

responsibility for their crimes, transformed their lives, and developed skills and abilities

they lacked before incarceration. They could be released from prison with no risk to

public safety.” Soffiyah Elijah, ESQ.Ex. Dir. N.Y. Correctional Association.

Attach AGING IN PRISON WWW.CENTER FOR

JUSTICE.COLUMBIA.EDU/AGING-IN-PRISON

TONJA BROWN, Advocate for the Inmates and Innocent

2907 Lukens Lane

Carson City, NV 89706

775-882-2744

IF THE RISK IS LOW

LET THEM GO

INDEX

NOTIS NDOC 00027 Highlighted in Orange is “CHARGED OFFENSE” that

has led to litigation.

Highlighted in Blue is “RESULT OFFENSE” that has led to litigation.

Highlighted in Orange “Offense Date” that led to litigation filed in the courts.

Some of the litigation became published opinions in the State of Nevada Supreme

Court, USDC including the 9th

Circuit Court of Appeals.

highlighted in Black is ‘REDACTED’ per the 2012 Settlement Agreement made

in the Wrongful death suit case of Nolan Klein.

Documents highlighted in ORANGE THAT ARE NOT REFLECTED IN NOTIS

“Offense in Custody History”, but appear in NOTIS, NDOC and Parole Board

files have led to litigation. attachments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17,

18.

It should be noted this information provided to this Commission is directly related to the

Discovery that was turned over in the litigation in the wrongful death suit of Nolan Klein

# 28074. USDC Case No. 3:10-cv-00679-ECR-VPC.

Attachment 1 NOTIS File aka Nevada Offender Tracking Information System

(a) NOTIS NDOC 00027 - 00036

(b) NOTIS NDOC 00028 Highlighted in YELLOW is the June 5, 2007 Computer

Glitch that placed false felony Charges in NDOC NOTIS

Attachment 2 - NOTIS Inmate Issue History - NDOC 00001-00008 leads

to USDC litigation that was still pending at the time of Klein’s death in Nolan Klein

vs Tony Corda USDC 3:09-cv-00387-LRH-RAM

Attachment 3 Inmate I-files – Inmates do not have access to all of the

information contained within the I-File. I-file contains confidential information. They

are not able to check for accuracies.

NDOC 01202, 01226, 01228, 01175,

Attachment 4- Inspector General Files -

NDOC 003810 December 2, 2005 letter from the Nevada Attorney General

exonerates Tonja Brown and those involved in the Inspector

General’s investigation regarding the Fred Huston investigation(s) The document was

discovered in the 2010 Wrongful Death Suit of Nolan Klein.

This Document as withheld by Deputy Attorney General William Geddes in the

Nolan Klein vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-PMP-VPC. DAG Geddes

submitted all 39 pages of the Inspector General investigative reports and NDOC

reports ‘IN CAMERA” to the Court, however, did not turn over the exculpatory

evidence NDOC 03810 stating “NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EXISTED” in the

Fred Huston Trust.

The withholding of this exculpatory evidence resulted in Klein’s claim being

dismissed with leaving unanswered questions as to whether or not Klein and Brown

will be charged in the future for stealing an elderly inmate Fred Huston’s money.

NDOC employees continued to punish Klein even though he had been exonerated by

the Attorney General’s Office.

Attachment 5 NOTIS INMATE GRIEVANCE REPORT; NDOC 02067-

02077,

Attachment 6 DISCIPLINARY;

(a) NOTIS NDOC 00027- 00036

(b) NOTIS NDOC 00027, 01847- 1845, 01859, 1124-1130,

Violation of Court Procedures MJ 48 See Attachment 7 (d)

(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027, NDOC 01839-01844, 01855, 01859

Tattooing MJ 20, MJ 26 See Attachment 7 (c)

(d) NOTIS NDOC 00027, NDOC 01816- 01828,

Fees for Legal service MJ 29

(e) NDOC 01080 Order correcting clerical error.

MJ 31.

(f) December 12, 2010 Letter from Inmate Russel Crew to AWO

Walsh.

(g.) January 21, 2001 letter to Director Crawford. See Attachment 7

(e) (a),

Attachment 7 LITIGATION .

(a) USDC District of Nevada Case No: 3:94-cv-00219-DWH-VPC . Class action

suit filed by Plaintiffs Lester Canada v McDaniels , Leroy Collins, Nolan E. Klein v.

Robert Miller, Timothy H. Johnson , Armando Nevarez, Sims Stevenson, Daniel Vance,

Leonard D. Vignola v Miller. Vignola v. Miller 2003 Published Opinion 9th

Circuit

Court of Appeals. (Inmates who refused to sign a fiscal agreement to allow NDOC to

take money off their personal accounts for expenses lost their jobs and were kept locked

up. Inmates lost years of credit that could be used towards a parole hearing.)

Chrono Entries for Klein, pg. D-MSJ10, 08/09/1999, 10/18/1999, 11/08/99.

(b) USDC 3:98-cv-00390-HDM-RAM, class action suit, establishes right to practice

Wiccan religion at the NDOC. (After the inmates won, the inmates were

retaliated against by NDOC staff, NODC would breached the terms of the

Settlement Agreement, In 2005 new litigation USDC 3:05-cv-00463-RLH-RAM

that resulted in the Religion Administrative Regulation being set, More

retaliation continued by NDOC staff and in 2009 more litigation was filed against

NDOC in Klein vs. Tony Corda for breach of settlement agreement)

(c) Nolan Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John Ignacio

(a) 04-16-2002 NSP Order, USDC cv-n-03-0001-ECR-RAM

(b) Chrono Entries for Klein, pgs. D-MSJ9

(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027 “OFFENSE IN CUSTODY HISTORY-

10/14/1999- MJ 20, Tattooing, 10/14/1999-MJ26 Possession of contraband

(d) NDOC 01839- NDOC 01856 grievances, write up, disciplinary, (NDOC

01855 inmate Sullivan admits at hearing Klein had nothing to with his

tattoo equipment. Klein found guilty.)

(d) Nolan E. Klein vs. E.K. McDaniel, Warden ESP August 27, 1998 Order of

Remand Nevada Supreme Court No: 32107 NDOC

(a) Offense In Custody History- 01/14/1998, MJ46: Violation of Court

Procedures. NDOC 01128 – 01130

(b) NDOC 00124 Memo to Don Helling regarding the violation of Court

Procedures.

Nothing prior to 1999 shows in NOTIS. NOTIS is submitted to the Parole

Board. This “Charge Offense” should have been removed. Where is the

previous 10 years, computer glitch?

(e) Nolan E. Klein vs. Kathy Childress USDC 3:00-cv-00020-HDM-VPC. (Childress

lost her job in the mail room and is assigned to another NDOC position, driving

the inmates to and from places.)

(a) January 21, 2001, Letter from Tonja Brown to Director Crawford. ( letter

was email to Crawford)

(b) NDOC 01170- 01171 04/18/2001 email to Director Jackie Crawford

(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027 5/20/2001. Conversion, Klein is transferred to

NNCC. (Klein had not problems until Helling was promoted to Warden and

transferred to NNCC. Benedetti followed and the retaliation continued until his

death in 2009)

(d) inmate Request Form TONJA ITS IN THE LETTER CHILDRESS.

(e) NDOC 010180 Second Judicial District Court Order correcting Clerical

Error Klien to Klein.

(f) Chrono Entries of Klein, Nolan E. D-MSJ 7 01/12/2001 .

Attachment 8 RETALIATION

(a) Klein v Crawford USDC 3:05-cv-00463-RLH-RAM. Set the NDOC

Administrative Regulation on practicing Wiccan Religion.

(b) Nolan Klein vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-PMP-VPC.

(a) NDOC 003810 December 2, 2005 letter from the Nevada

Attorney General.This document was discovered in the 2010

Wrongful Death Suit of Nolan Klein. This Document as withheld

by Deputy Attorney General William Geddes in the Nolan Klein

vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-PMP-VPC. DAG Geddes

submitted all of the Inspector General investigative reports and

NDOC reports ‘IN CAMERA” to the Court, however, did not turn

over the exculpatory evidence NDOC 03811 stating “NO

CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EXISTED” in the Fred Huston Trust.

The withholding of this exculpatory evidence resulted in Klein’s claim

being dismissed, thereby, leaving unanswered questions as to whether

or not Klein and Brown will be charged in the future for exploiting an

elderly inmate, Fred Huston, out of his money.

The retaliatory behavior of NDOC employees resulted in Mr. Klein’s

transfer to LCC in 2005. This delay resulted in him not receiving

proper medical treatment. This played a factor in his untimely death.

(b) Affidavit from Fred Huston and correspondence from Fred Huston.

(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027, External Movement 05/03/2005 Klein was

transferred LCC

(d) NOTIS NDOC 00031 Case Notes 04/27/2007 “IG investigated

some type of money Scam.”

(e) NOTIS NDOC 00031 -00032, 07/26/2005 Huston 72877 victim of

money scam.

(f) NOTIS NDOC 00032, 04/06/2006 “ 1 at NNCC 72877 Fred

Huston.

(g) NOTIS NDOC 00032, 03/14/2007, “I/M is currently housed at GH

at LCC but will RX separation from 72877 at NNCC

(h) NOTIS NDOC 00033, 04/10/2007, will need to stay housed in

Unit 7B because of CMS on main yard.

(i) NOTIS NDOC 00034, 01/24/2008, “HUSTON, FRED # 7288 in

3C7L. I/M needs to remain @ NNCC medical”, Huston and Klein are

together because of medical reason.

(j) NOTIS NDOC 00027, Conversion 03/19/2007- 09/24/2008

Conversion NNCC remained in segregated Unit 7B due to being placed on

enemy list by Don Helling.

(k) NOTIS NDOC 00035 07/07/2009 Klein transferred to NNCC.

(l) NOTIS NDOC 00036 7/13/09 Warden Don Helling Orders Klein

to remain in segregated Unit 7b until he is transferred to the RMF where

he dies on September 20, 2000.

(c) Nolan Klein vs Tony Corda USDC 3:09-cv-00387-LRH-RAM, breach of

Settlement Agreement made in Klein v Crawford USDC 3:05-cv-00463-RLH-RAM.

Klein dies while litigation is pending.

Attachment 9 Segregation -

(a) see Attachment 7 (d) Nolan E. Klein vs. E.K. McDaniel, Warden

ESP August 27, 1998 Order of Remand Nevada Supreme Court No: 32107

NDOC

(b) See Attachment 7 (c) Nolan Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John

Ignacio.

(c) See Attachment 8 (b) Nolan Klein vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-

PMP-VPC.

See Attachment Nolan E. Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John Ignacio.

(c) See Attachment 7 (c) Nolan Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John

Ignacio

SEE EMAIL ON 2007 08 LAWSUITS.

Attachment 10 computer glitch,

(a). NOTIS NDOC 00028 Highlighted in Yellow is the June 5, 2007 Computer Glitch

that placed false felony Charges in NDOC NOTIS.

NOTIS NDOC 00028 under case notes 10 years are missing, Why? Computer

glitch?

(b) State of Nevada Audit Report, Department of Corrections Accuracy of Criminal

History Information 2013, Pg. 11 Computer Glitch” Had no Consequences

(c) Tonja Brown’s letter to the 2013 Senate Judiciary showing the flaws in the

computer glitch audit, NOTIS NDOC 00028 felony charges.

(d) Ongoing computer glitch problems with NOTIS?

http://parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q3-

FY2015_Jan-Mar.pdf Board of Parole Commissioners

Quarterly Report January 1, 2015 – March 31, 2015 (Q3 – FY15)

Page 14

“The NDOC NOTIS database was not available at the time of the hearing

or a database issue resulted in a lack of access to information necessary to

conduct the hearing or make an action recommendation

Attachment 11 PAROLE AND PARDONS: REPORT REQUIREMENT

AR NOLAN’S LETTER TO DORLA, ect. AR 52

Attachment 12 PSYCH PANEL; Adminstrative Regulation 537.03

Nolan’s change from moderate to high risk.

Attachment 13 INMATES CONCERNS REGARDING PAROLE BOARD

DENIALS WHEN THEIR PREVIOUS PAROLE WAS GRANTED TO THEIR

NEXT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE, THEY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE , ARE

DISCIPLINARY FREE, A MODEL PRISONER AND ARE NOW BEING

DENIED A PAROLE WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS!

NDOC has an Appeal pending, 2007 psych panel High Risk.

“NDOC NOTIS database was not available at the time of the hearing or a

database issue resulted in a lack of access to information necessary to

conduct the hearing or make an action recommendation.” Tab ?? pg. 14

Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly Report January 1, 2015- March 31,

2015 (Q3-FY15)

TAB 14 AGGREGATED SENTENCES

(a) Letter from Inmate Robert Jennings # 54439

. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Minutes/Senate/JUD/Final/682.pdf

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Senate/JUD/SJUD682H.pdf

Attachment 15 VICTIM(S) verses INMATES RIGHT TO RECEIVE A FAIR

PAROLE HEARING.

(a) November 21, 2010 Letter to victim from Parole Board Commissioners. It

demonstrates how the victim can provide information that will remain confidential from

the inmate.

Need to put in CREW BROTHERS INFORMATION

Attachment 16 Parole Board’s Guidelines:

Attachment 17 VIOLATING INMATE(S) DUE PROCESS TO RECEIVE A

PAROLE HEARING AND REVOCATIONS BY THE PAROLE BOARD LEADS

TO LITIGATION

(a) Jesse Anderson

(b) Nolan Klein vs. Jackie Crawford USDC 3:04-cv-00049-ECR-RAM

(a) H & H 001901- H&H 001902 June 4, 2007 Letter from the Nevada

Attorney General offering deal for parole,

(b) Nevada Appeal Story on Nolan’s July 10, 2007 Due Process hearing.

Under stockmeire story on flash drive

(c) NOTIS NDOC 00033 date(s) 8/21/2007 – 10/16/2007 No progress report

submitted to Parole Board denied parole.

(d) September 28, 2007 Letter to Parole Board Chairman Dorla Salling

regarding his Appeal on the July 10, 2007 decision and the September 27, 2007

hearing.

(e) H&H 2433- 2436, Code Of Ethics Parole Board.

(f) Demand for Apology from Dorla Salling, David Smith acknowledges no

progress report was done or submitted on Klein for the September 27,

2007.

Attachment 18 INMATE LITIGATION AGAINST THE PAROLE BOARD

(a) Nolan Klein vs. Connie Bisbee USDC 3:09-cv-00221-LRH-RAM

litigation resulted from the July 10, 2007 and July 27, 2007 Parole Board

hearings. This case was still pending at the time of Klein’s death. See

Attachment 17 (b) Klein v Crawford.

(b) Letter and documents from Inmate Harold Harter # 44629.

Russel Crew establishes under Bowen

Norman Crew establishes under Biffath

Cases to refer to if asked. John Allen murder ? Elmer John Werner murder?

Attachment 19 2015 ASSEMBLY BILL 267

Letter from Inmate Jeff Jones # 25525