This~is

a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128)

/flg.:Doi!/Cf!/'

a" 8:/?. g 0 I'o

<PV vD

ASP 406 North High Street
Anamosa,Iowa 52205-~0
2012

-

·---

Received &Inspected

JUL 2 5 Z01Z

FCC Mai! Room

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public
Comments
--- ---- ----- --445 12th street,sw
washington,D.C. 20554
~·

Dear Chairman Genachowski;
I am an inmate at the Anamosa State Penitentiary and I am
writing this letter in support of the Wright Petition (CC Docket
#96-128).
As an inmate,I and my family are being gouged with outrageous
connection fee and per minute rates. I say my family as they are
the ones who usually place the money on my telephone account.
In Iowa,all inmates must make calls using the state owned
telephone system. We are charged a $2.00 connection fee for all instate calls plus a per minute rate from 19¢ to 28¢ per minute,
depending on the area code you are calling.
When placing a call out-of-state,you are charged a $3.00
connection fee and 25¢ and up per minute. All calls are for 20
minutes.
I am hoping that this letter will prompt your commission to
make the State of Iowa lower both the connection fee and per
minute costs for all inmates.
Thank you for your time and attention to this support letter.
Sincerely,

l+

ll

jl
lj
\I

l

tI!

li
!

!

Ii

tj

jI

l!

!I
'I

ll
1I
I I

,I
:j,l

.I
tI
H
p
II
!l
!

I

m'. ~

~ \\-od~ *(J;OtYDo67

t6~Cl Co~(~\O'()CL\ ~~ \i~
<iriS" 0£. ~~c_e_ Rd.
. \6~0. \.L6 lo lo (o 0 l
I

€a.(' CJt\CX\f'f(\CU\

C0extQc.h6W0K\)

m\-s \50... pub\\c..
C.0'ff\f0€.-n\ ~O( ~

Wf\~-t'?eA-\\-\cn
tt.Doc.\<.ct \4. q LD- \ ()?$

Received & Inspected

~-~~~,~~~~,-~~~---"'+~.....-<\.~ -~~-,. ~
..

........

JUL 2 5 Z01Z

..,,..,.·....__

DlfMl._fu~JuicJJ_a~-~-5;_______ --------·---··i=eeMatrttoorrr - --~·- --- ~

.__-----+---------·----------------..----------·--·--·-·----

~-----

·----·-··---·

-----~-~-------------~-----------~----------------

-----+--------------------------~----

This is a public

co~~ent

I

for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128)

'

e:>Je.~ fJI De~ls.

ioc;pY ~q

ASP 406 North High Street
Anamosa,Iowa 52205-1157

1

lfeeetved &lnsl'eeted

JUL 2 5 201Z

Fcc Mail Room
1

I

2012

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal

Co~nunications

Co~~ission

Public Comments
445 12th Street,sw
Washington,D.C.

20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski;
I am an inmate at the Anamosa State Penitentiary and I am
writing this letter in support of the Wright Petition (CC Docket
#96-128).
As an inmate,I and my family are being gouged with outrageous
connection fee and per minute rates. I say my family as they are
the ones who usually place the money on my telephone account.
In Iowa,all inmates must make calls using the state owned
telephone system. We are charged a $2.00 connection fee for all instate calls plus a per minute rate from 19¢ to 28¢ per minute,
depending on the area code you are calling.
When placing a call out-of-state,you are charged a $3.00
connection fee and 25¢ and up per minute. All calls are for 20
minutes.
I am noping that this letter will prompt your commission to
make the State of Iowa lower both the connection fee and per
minute costs for all inmates.
Thank you for your time and attention to this support letter.
Sincerely,

Reeejved &Inspected

,.

t....(\(A~ lLN\ 1\ N

b s~o.. c{ 0

3\.\ (\ \.) s,

~ ?tlcAv4 ~c..e..

oF

C-

W So.

~JUl

R.:

252012

FCC Mail Room

ho-.~l~ O~~€.o.-jCC:..O~S o..M00~1~ roQ.. \~f\I\.f>.~~

coJ($

ho.,s b~~i~ ~oi'~ O~ 9c>~ j~Q..S_ S1-o..(2..\~ o.r -th~ COUN~i ~~
i \~ 9zs> MO~N~S.. l
\2.-Z-.c.o-.t I ·1 h~ D~s lVbiC"'\~\2~\~~ \A2-\~t \N~
c"'~ 6-.Qj ~ G/~ G-b<e>u+ +hz.- I~f'-..~JS, c:>!= 'bol(D..Q~ IN 'RSY<;;...~-Je, +(,o-.~

+hz..j "'-"'~~
_~6<J ,h<>--\{Z-.

T

~

0....

S.~No{~,jE--

je?:.-F'sR... • .

or CDoQ.-.s~

\~NI.~\.ss. ;~

CDUN''1

~'> s H':-r- y ~o"'s -t V [,,-c ... C-o (/ "-"-t c "'[(s. to
1~D--~' \-../ ~~ l ~++O<LK~'{S. jc.A ~h~ \Lo-.~ss. ~f:.-es V'=-.Q.y h~sh~o~ roQ.. j~Q.s k~C2-<C.. ~1 thz.&~ )~S..}.,\ut~ONfj +-01Z-\Mp..d,~a~
C{6.-\L~~~~ Co~\ ~ONo..\ ro,.~ l~\~ D--~d ~~~~DS p. ;)\~~ V,£,N\.f ~N .\- ~o..Q.1·'..-I ':::>; f-l\ pf~ Co 0 IJ ~ot A~~(2.d +0 CDN.lt--\ub.., N)()"K~ ~
C-ojls -tc? ~'--I ~O-.~J'I £A~ ~ G~~Js (tJ~e... ~+~Oe.N~'1_
to-,c-- k c-o..J( t~ GA M\ N , MuM ~ ~< DD (D-<L JS "-"\Nu\E.-::::' / ~ \,,\5,
fV'.,<'>-,/ SO~ N j G. \="roe.-J k (~ +0
y8c:>R( ~ o~A· o~ 0-. R t:.1s 0 N, 60 t
-to 0> ,~tJ)~+~-'s' 1>" ~o 0~\1 /V)oV:::<e:- $2-0 +D$ ~D.ao
Mar(-+~
i ~ 1-> 6...fvlb~ N~ i~ ~05 t... - 3 LOJ(~ 6 6.. Qo~N d 2-0 JoJ (o.~
Tho..4:::,
[0 t .k, ~
Fo~ ovf-'R- '--I yf:.A fl-S .J- ~~ ~{/(i s To pp.sd
ce>--1 r: t-i5 d'~'~ r~; 2:..K Js D-,~ 1 ro:~J;J' .l ~ND~ }h~ Lo\dJ h~j r by
S~i"d'~ ~ Mz- MO~f:-i ~ t i -+ ~ ~ N 0 \ rCA\ EL +D +(,.,£.~ +<e> Vo..~

+

0

<0>

CA

CJ'.,

0--.

1)2, -

l h; ~~ e..o.--~E-:S ~-o Lt~~ DUe.. Yo\ ce.~ _
Vi z.o..~ LC:"N\Ro.<z'-E:.. hou.-J (V)0C-~ o-ttn<Z=.fL ~T'cA+~
c:-ho..~\~ ~rz.
l' hz-~~ Sze.'{ ,·cas. -.L ~ ~0-5) N ~ +\"0. +- -1 ~~ ~:s, McNb.-{ /'v\f\.K.£. e.. GR.
~~ '/ '2> + ~ ss. / 1-0-.)(. ~ N~ ~J
~~ o f l ~ ~ TE-S to £.E:..d .J- (:)
C.o~ ~C3-.c.J- +hE-~ lL 'Loys.d 6~ s,s. -

S;u L

(3"QS

0...

'(O-r-l

0.

\{Z.0LJ

~-1 {Z.Dt-J MDt2~{.sS

('4'..

Received & Inspected

JUt 252012

~\

7-/(0- 12

FCC Mail Room

c..h;1('mo.l"I

Gena.c.Ytowf::,).<i,

ur un+i o..,o()(\d 2007
-Wte0a~5 Cl~ p'("r~ ~e.('e In ern lc.hiJan had been chaci~
I

ex--6,-hO(\ \dze pr1tes -\1r Collect- fulTs. ihese be./(j +he
o'{\\,-} +yp-e of calls ~. inmo..b We're aUou.>ecl -fc ma.ke .
fu\s e:1)0cx..\--ed. 10 ~'f'O()nd 41 q. DO pe.(' )5 -- MInu+e. c..a.1I) Ocn6 ',-f
0'(1\>, ~Df t.UO('5e ,~ Ii- iAXl.6 10?J dls·hmc.e. Theve C06-to kl
s+ricJ\( c* +he' ones who we needed 10 L.a.1/ J +hereby
~x p\c)\+t ~ DO, 1o veLl ones., .J:."-I- Wct6 lIke <+\r-,TS .(1, deca:1e
fj) you j(.V\OLD ~I ~ +hew f)('Otit I'Y\(;trcJ1r15 had +0 be rn
fu-e b~ III OilS--

o.('OLl0d 2007 M.l:J.o. c.. 6ro~ht ~y\ 0. ckb~+, 6)16+eff
~'ne.l("'e w.e could Pt'e.- fXt)' c.all-o" b('II(jI-(j +he prIce ~ fh
CJ\JllizeJ QYY\O()(lt- of If) ¢ per m\flO+e
Du+ ,(lOw SInce
~eY\, \)'6i~ :>ne e>(cvse or ClY10,~er) the.), helVe CD..1J6ed .fht
'('Cl-\-eS ~ rOJse YIIC)her o..nd hljhef' t(jcti'n -(.:::c.+e (lOW ct+ 2Z
~( XYW,o-\-e~. 0.e Iilmo..-ks cto not- V\o..V€docd ftt)"(Y 00 be
Ohct. \VI o('A)-(- 1-0 \4..e.e.p in cortbc..+- 0~+h ou. lo'-led ones
{beb0es \A){'I~<:J \e~eB wy,;~ -kke.v clQ)''D)- +hi'6 OtUu5-t
r"c.e .\'o..tls ~') +heIr bu,den/
---rrllmk '100 ~, )'O()(' +HY1-e, V~
(P

To:
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communication Commission

Received & Inspected

JUl 25 ZOlZ
FCCMaHRoom

Public Comments
445 12TH street S.W.
Washington, D.C., 20554

From:
Nathan Dallas Brightman #781425
Washington state Department Of Corrections
stafford Creek Correction Center
191 Constatine Way
Aberdeen, WA, 98520

Re: Wright Petition

(Docket 96-128)

Dear Chairmen Genachowski,

I am writing in regards to a petition that is going around in the
prison systems regarding the extremely high costs of the phone call charged
to inmates and their family. I have been in prison for over 14 years, and
in the time I have been incarcerated myself and my family has had to have
spent 30,000$ dollars on the phone. I have a very supportive family that
enjoys the conversation that we have, and are willing to go with out things
they need in order to budget for a phone call that costs ten times that of
a normal phone call. The fairness is evidently not there. As an inmate, I
make 32¢ and hour, and have to work eleven hours just-tb have a twenty minute
phone call with my children. Even if I wanted to take the burden of the bill
from the ones that I love, the pay scale in prison does not allow me to do

Page 2
•

so. The people that support irunates are the ones that pay taxes every year.
They are the men and wanan that work in your community, serve you and your
family at the stores your frequent. They are WE THE PEX)PLE. They should not
be punished for the love they have for a family member that was imprisoned.
The cost of keeping in phone contact with a loved one in prison is just that,
a punishment. But it is a punishment for the law abiding citizen that has
a love and loyalty to family. The phone companies know that love will drive
a brokenhearted mother that is struggling to pay for medication, to pay an
exorbitant price to hear that her son is safe and alive. There is not much
fairness to that, or to the fact that these companies are rewarded for preying
on the emotions of people by being able to inflate the prices year after
year. The system needs a new face and stronger regulations to protect people
from the companies that monopolize markets that restrict irunates from seeking
better deals or lower prices. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Nathan Dallas Brightman #781425

THURSDAYflORNING I~m TUL~ JO/l
~'OOAfI\

FROM: MR. Mtchael A.,. Gal/Jes
£DCF - CtNtral
Po

tL DORADO - CENTKAL

A2-/07

£1- DOKAJ)O) KANSAS t70fJ -03//
(31') - 3J/- 7J.84
Received &Inspected

0. Box 3 JJ

,1';', ? 52012

tl Dorado) KaNsas

t 701J. -031/

FCC Mail Room

TO: Cha:rmJN JUII~1J5 GeNdchowsK,o

Fe4eral CcJrltYIJVNICa t/~oN5 Comf11iss/~ N
Publ tc

Com meNLs

445 12th Street SW

Wash/~tNJ DC cl0554-

ftJ>

S lJPIbR~ rr,"sotJ phD/Je JiJst,"ce c amra~ N

!tDeal"

~

C6;ilY\a~ Ge~acboW5k~ )J

;tJGH"ce~atJ ~tJ the. Sup,ermax fL the. fJ)CF-C
IN ,EJ dorad ~ Kallsas serVt~
ItJ.(gwe hOlld~ S Jxty -two) n'lOllthsj L ve
bta dow; s;;'ce JJJOS) howeve (' I was arresteJ /tJ l1af.. d.~ 02/)O'/. The.
S JII'[e <e.tsf1?'S1 ~o/Je calIs were ,QlJtJze Sebw1"c.K 'Gu/fy DeieN 1Mw
F10/;If ttJ Wit ;td) KJllSas.
afl1

currwLr

ace UrN

<I

time

:t.J

1980 whetJ

Southwesknl &11 vias til

BIlS/~e.£)

d-FPordd~le. Fad -h,rward the dJSfWtt%~ the
IlJdusfrla11rlsoN Gmplex, III f1}oderll dar era has beet.J CoN'tfo/IJd
bv,lt ~Y CCIIV;~ts a~d pr/~dlJer:: fa ~i 11e..s aN1 love olieS • kith JKtJ
also kill dNd fr,eNis. Bv their .f,NaNcIal supportllq aNd 'Urx-paVlIlq d()Uars

the p&1Je .c.3I&

0

were

f~.: 2}

by su ffortl5 ih~& of us Jt1 priso"!i wheJJ etcepi~l/q diJir~egiJS aspevst"ve
fhoNe calh ~d~deJ ~ 'Mid serv:ces or paded ·~ a11d ca.sts.'J
~sas DepartmeNt of Grre.c~to!JS provtder ~r COIIV/Ct .-&let,hoNe Sf11//'Ce .
IS /0'1 BA RQ._ a11d aIso f reF' J coilk i esiabl ,.s heJ oN/IN e Ji JAMW.JCStJiut
CorY/ 1 are. exsfllsive, fvr exam /e, £MBAKQ
NEW CI.J.JlNG RAllS
COlL£C

Tht: cai/J pari! ~;J/ 11oi be d~~1.eJ ;wy ~ei- uft o(' p,.,cess ,.,
feeS by Efl'l bJ.j 355b CtJie¢ wtih
c~ fleet JCCOIIJ/-I:a

reraui

Pre - paiJ

co//ec.i accov,is

IYL&f

afso be.. se--Lp oN/,'ue ai JltJ CfJS

t

.,

the state plans to return all out-of-state
prisoners within 4 years. "Due to realignment, the implementation of the inmate
classification score system, and other infill
projects ... all offenders will be returned
to California," the report said. "This plan
eliminates the use of all out-of-state contract facilities by 2015-16."
The CDCR report noted that "Upon
full implementation of this plan, the elimination of the out-of-state contract beds
will result in a reduction of $318 million
General Fund and over 400 positions from
the department's budget."
According to the report, the outof-state prisoner population would be
reduced to 9,038 by 2012-13; to 4,969 by
2013-14; to 1,864 by 2014-15; and to 531
by 2015-16, with a complete phase out by
the end of 2016.
CCA has a significant stake in California, as the state accounted for 13% of
the company's total revenue in 2010. Thus,
CCA has courted California lawmakers mainly through donations to their election
campaigns. From 2003 to 2010, CCA officials
and the company's Political Action Committee contributed over half a million dollars to
political candidates, incumbents and parties in
California; the majority of those funds went to
75 candidates between 2008 and 2010.

Despite such corporate largess, the
anticipated CDCR contracts that CCA
touted in its November 8, 2010 press
release ne)ler came to pass. Unable to fill
it~ Prairie Correctional Facility in Minnesota, CCA was forced to keep the prison
closed; it had been shuttered in February
2010 after Minnesota and Washington
State pulled their prisoners out.
The company had hoped to reopen
the 1,600-bed facility by stocking it with
California prisoners, but not only did that
not happen, it now looks like CCA will
lose its existing contracts with the CDCR
to house approximately 9,500 out-of-state
prisoners. This will have a negative impact
on CCA's revenue but will be a positive
step for the thousands of prisoners returned to California, who will be closer
to their families.
"The California experience shows
that states can save money and maintain
public safety by carefully reducing their
prison populations instead of paying
private for-profit corporations millions
of dollars," said Don S~cter, director of
the Prison Law Office. ,.
Sources: Minnesota Independent, CCA
press release, Sacramento Bee, http://californiawatch. org, www. insidecca. com

Head Q)mez

By: Eugene Weems
limothy Richardson
Dead? Pac Dead?

Proof Dead?
'Who gets hit next
in this game of
killers for hire?
Send $14.95 +$3.95 S&H

Universal Pub
Box 1432
Ama.zon.Com D1xon, CA 956?0
Check out the new Upocale Pen-Pal
ISBN: 978-0-~1-7 ~.0.

Site for those with style & Swagger

$29.95 for 1-year membership
IncarceratedBachelors-PenPals. com
PO Box 1432, Dixon, CA 95620

SMITH'S GUIDE to
HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF

for State Prisoners under 28 U.S.C.
Example pleadings from the initial
habeas corpus petition to the
for a writ of certiorari.

guide you step-by-step
the federal courts with

380pages.
$24.95 + $6.95 shipping & handling. InCA
add $2.18 sales tax. Sent via USPS media mail
Money orders, personal or institutional chKks
ONLY. Send $31.90 (InCA, $34.08) payablE' to
Roberts Company
Send name, addre>s, prisoner It, and payment to:

Roberts Company, 15412 Electronic Lane #1 01
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Also available on Amazon. com

WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT
Jttorney at ,{gw

Have you been seriously injured?
Wrongly convicted? Denied parole?
Accidents § Appeals § Police Brutality

Fetieral • State • Local
Civil Rights, Writs, Parole Hearings, Transfers, Clas.sification, Visiting, Medical
Provitiin~]ustice Throu~hout

California by Plane

377 W. FALLBROOK, SUITE 207, FRESNO, CA 937II

P.O. Box 2500I, FRESNO, CA 93729-5001
le~alsch~itit~g?nailco~

559·261.2222

.

l.:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ _ _ _ _ _:~.,_.'l,,

...

Prison Legal News

29

July 2012

Texas Prison System Increases Prisoners'
Monthly Phone Mi.nutes
by Matt Clarke
n 2007, when Texas became the last
state in the nation to let prisoners make
Iphone
calls on a regular basis, the limit on
phone usage was 120 minutes a month.
[See: PLN, Nov. 2007, p.ll]. Two years
later the Texas Board of Criminal Justice
(TBCJ) responded to requests by prisoners' families and doubled the monthly
phone minute allotment to 240. In 2011
the Texas legislature considered, but ultimately did not adopt, an amendment
that would have increased the number of
minutes to 480; regardless, the limit on
phone usage was upped anyway.
Not surprisingly, Texas officials have
not increased the number of phone minutes solely for the benefit of prisoners
and their families, for whom phone calls
are a primary means of communication.
Rather, the reason for allowing additional
phone minutes is strictly financial. The
legislature needs to plug a large budget
deficit and money from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) phone
system is an attractive source.
£.urrenfu, phone calls from Texas
state prisoners cost $.234/minute for debit
m-state phone calls ($.26/minute for collect or prepaid) and $.387/minute for debit
out-of-state calls ($.43/minute for collect
_pr prepaid.J_ WhiTe tfiose rates are significantly less than those charged in other
state prison systems, they are still higher
than rates paid by the general public.
Of course the state gets a hefty
kickback from the TDCJ phone contract
- 40% of the gross revenue, with some
of that money earmarked for the Crime
Victims Compensation Fund. Thus, the
more calls that prisoners make, the greater
the amount of revenue and the greater
the kickback to the state. This led Rep.
Jerry Madden to introduce an amendment
to Senate Bill 1 (2011) that would have
increased the number of allotted phone
minutes to 480 per month, by amending
Texas Government Code§ 495.027(d).
"This is an easy way to raise money
for the state," said Madden.
Complicating the revenue-generating
rationale behind increasing the number
of allotted phone minutes is the fact
that many prisoners do not even use 240
minutes per month. This is likely due to
restrictions placed on the TDCJ phone

July 2012

system - for example, prisoners can only
call up to ten people included on their
visitation list, who must go through a
bureaucratic registration process. Additionally, phone calls to cell phones are not
allowed; thus, people without landlines are
unable to receive calls from prisoners.
Still, providing prisoners with more
phone minutes, regardless of the motivation of state officials, is beneficial and
conducive to increased communication
between prisoners and their families and
friends. Unfortunately, Rep. Madden's
amendment to increase the number of
phone minutes to 480 was excluded from
the final enrolled version of Senate Billl.
The bill did include a provision to charge
Texas prisoners a $100 annual fee for
medical care, replacing the prior co-pay
system; that change went into effect in

September 2011. [See: PLN, April 2012,
p.24].
Despite the demise of Rep. Madden's
amendment, the TDCJ decided in midMay 2011 to modify the phone system
to let prisoners make up to 500 minutes
of phone calls each month. Calls are still
limited to 15 minutes each, and the other
restrictions described above still apply.
If the restrictions were changed to
decouple TDCJ prisoners' phone number
lists from their visitation lists, and to allow calls to cell phones, revenue from the
prison phone system would likely skyrocket
despite the costly per-minute rates.,.
Sources: Texas Tribune, www.prisontalk.
com, http: 1/gritsforbreakfast. blogspot.
com, www. tdcj.state. tx. us, www. texasprisonphone. com

Oklahoma Taxpayers Foot $13.5 Million
Settlement Bill for Sexual Abuse by Jailers
by David M. Reutter

T

he general public typically shows little
concern about abuse and corruption
in jails and prisons, at least until it affects
them personally. That was the case when
residents in Delaware County, Oklahoma
attended a November 2011 meeting of
the County Commission and learned
they may face an increase in property
taxes to satisfy a settlement in a lawsuit
that accused county jailers of raping and
molesting female prisoners.
"We alleged the sheriff permitted his
jail to be a sexual romper room," said R.
Thomas Seymour, an attorney representing 15 former female prisoners who were
held at the Delaware County Jail (DCJ).
The women were incarcerated between
2005 and 2010 on charges that ranged
from drug and alcohol-related offenses
to assault and larceny.
Seymour's law firm, Seymour & Graham, with the Garrett Law Office, had
previously represented female prisoners
who were sexually abused by Custer County, Oklahoma Sheriff Michael Burgess,
who was convicted and sentenced to 79
years in prison. [See: P LN, March 2012,
p.24; Sept. 2009, p.36; May 2009, p.l).

30

At the center of the Delaware Coul}ty
allegations were DCJ Administrator Lonnie Hunter and jail volunteer Bill Sanders,
Sr. The lawsuit alleged that Hunter and
Sanders had raped and sexually groped
female prisoners when driving them to
doctor appointments or while the women
were in their cells or shower areas. It also
claimed other jailers would "bargain"
with prisoners to expose their breasts in
exchange for food, cigarettes, candy and
personal items. Sheriff Jay Blackfox was
accused of covering for his employees and
ignoring prisoners' complaints.
"I did not cover up anything," said
Blackfox, who was elected in 2004. "I
would not have tolerated any type of
sexual misconduct out of my staff."
Sheriff Blackfox acknowledged that
he received a letter of complaint in 2008
from female prisoners, which he said he
immediately turned over, along with witness statements, to the Oklahoma State
Bureau of Investigation. An investigation
was opened and a report sent to Delaware
County District Attorney Eddie Wyant.
Citing insufficient evidence, Wyant declined to prosecute at that time.

Prison Legal News