From the Editor - Prison Legal News

Florida court has sentenced civil
A rights activist Nancy Jo Grant
to 15 years probation, with no possibility
of early termination, for practicing law
without a license. Grant, 55, was also
ordered to pay $30,315 in court fines by
December 30, 2007, or her driver’s license
will be suspended until the fines are paid
in full.
A dental assistant who has no formal,
training, Grant decided during a visit to
her son in the DeSoto County Jail that
some prisoners were not receiving proper
legal representation. Grant formed the
Florida Pro Se Bar Inc. to tackle the
problem. That non-profit corporation
presumably had the purpose to inform
prisoners of their rights and to encourage
pro se litigation.
Grant claimed many prisoners had
been incarcerated without a hearing or a
trial. She began “preaching” to prisoners
that their speedy trial rights were ignored
and their constitutional rights violated.
Grant began distributing an “emergency
motion for release” prepared by her paralegal
friend, telling prisoners how to fill
out the form and file it.
The 29 counts of unlicensed practice
of law were predicated on Grant’s encouragement
that prisoners fire their lawyers,
either retained or public defender, because
they were rendering ineffective assistance
of counsel. Because she donated her time
and resources, Grant claimed at trial, acting
pro se, that she did nothing wrong.
In furtherance of her defense, Grant
said she was not giving legal advice, she
was only typing and performing “courier
services” to act as a conduit to transmit
legal papers from the jail to the court and
to “share information.” The jury thought
otherwise, convicting Grant on 19 of the
29 charges. As part of her sentence, Grant
was ordered to not communicate directly
or indirectly with any person incarcerated
in a jail or prison or the Florida Civil
Commitment Center.
An appeal is planned by Grant. “This
is going to blow up in their faces,” said
Grant, who feels the prosecution lost. “He
lost because I didn’t go to jail…they sentenced
me to 15 years probation and fined
me $30,000. That’s a buncha money.”
Prior to visiting her son in jail, Grant
April 2008
Florida Woman Sentenced to Probation for
Unauthorized Practice of Law
by David M. Reutter
already had an activist bent towards the judicial
system. She is the “Jailer-In-Chief”
of Florida JAIL4Judges, an activist group
that seeks to act as a Grand Jury, indict
judges, and take them to trial if their rulings
are undesirable. Because Grant used
Florida Pro Se Bar Association to practice
law without a license, the judge ordered
her to sever all ties and communication
30
with the corporation.
The question now is will Grant comply
with probation to avoid jail or will an
indictment and trial issue first that would
allow her to jail, under supervision, the
trial judge that sentenced her?
Sources: Charlotte Sun; The North Country
Gazette
California Sex Offenders Uprooted by
New Restrictive Residency Law
California’s pernicious “Jessica’s
Law,” overwhelmingly approved
by voters on November 7, 2006 as a result
of Proposition 83, restricts certain
paroled sex offenders from living within
2,000 feet of a school, park or other
areas where children are present. As of
December 2007, the law was being enforced
against 5,669 parolees; it is not
being applied retroactively following a
February 9, 2007 federal district court
ruling. See: Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 476
F.Supp.2d 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2007) [PLN,
July 2007, p.27].
On September 11, 2007, the California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), through its parole
agents, gave sex offenders in violation
of the law 45 days notice to move or face
arrest and re-imprisonment. Four affected
parolees who objected took the matter to
the California Supreme Court, and in December
2007 were granted stays pending
that court’s review of the issue. However,
the Court refused to defer enforcement
for other parolees, suggesting instead
that their remedy (if any) was, in the first
instance, at the Superior Court level.
See: E.J. on Habeas Corpus, California
Supreme Court, Case No. S156933, and
related cases.
A two-month delay in implementing
the residency “sweep” was due to the
CDCR having to reach an agreement with
its 2,800 parole agents relative to increased
workload and overtime for notifying and
monitoring affected sex offenders. The
agents use Global Positioning System
(GPS) devices to track the offenders to
ensure enforcement. According to the
Los Angeles Times the GPS tracking
initiative faces a variety of challenges,
including problems with monitoring sex
offenders who are no longer on parole
or probation; a lack of penalties for offenders
who refuse to comply; and the
practicality of lifetime monitoring for so
many offenders.
Then there is the cost – an estimated
$90 million annual price tag for tracking
9,000 sex offenders. The GPS devices cost
$2,500 each, but rather than buying them
the state is renting them for $8.50 a day, or
more than $3,102 a year, which is hardly
cost effective.
Beyond issues related to GPS monitoring,
the residency restrictions have been
devastating. Many parolees were living in
housing arranged by their parole agents
before the law went into effect. Charles
Butler, 61, was one of 15 sex offenders
comfortably ensconced at Pete’s Place,
a halfway house in Sacramento. But under
Jessica’s Law all 15 suddenly had to
move because there was a senior center
two blocks away that had a playground
for children. “It didn’t occur to me, when
you’re living where they put you and where
they’re paying your rent,” that it was not
a legal residence, said the surprised Butler
when he was “discovered” to be in violation
of the law after the CDCR conducted
location reviews.
The solution ranges from difficult to
near-impossible. For example, if sex offenders
are paroled to the compact City
and County of San Francisco, they may
only live in a narrow area near AT&T
Park (the baseball field), which is a highrent
area inconsistent with most parolees’
budgets.
Ross Wollschlager, 44, a repeat sexu-
Prison Legal News