Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > OHIO > Ohio Parole, Probation, Work Release, Halfway Houses & Community Service
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Ohio Parole, Probation, Work Release, Halfway Houses & Community Service All information relating to parole, probation, halfway houses, community service and electronic monitoring in Ohio should be posted here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2003, 06:38 PM
bebopp7's Avatar
bebopp7 bebopp7 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 605
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Default Attorney Sirak sueing more Ohio prison officials

Just got this up date in hope it helps


Norman L. Sirak, Attorney At Law
Member D.C. Bar Association
Member Ohio Bar Association
P.O. Box 7468, Canton, Ohio 44705
4035 Cinwood St. N.W., Massillon, Ohio 44646
330-478-1947
330-478-1953 (fax)

To : Clients and Sponsors
From : Becki Miller, Administrative Assistant
Re : Amended Lawsuit Against Margarette Ghee

Enclosed, you will find an Amended Complaint to
our lawsuit against
Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer. Three new
people have been added. Austin
Stout is Assistant Chief Legal Counsel for DRC's
Central Office. He is the
person responsible for burdening our legal mail
with new conditions; (1)
letters must reflect a Canton, Ohio postmark; (2)
envelopes must have typed
addresses; and (3) the postmark must agree with
the return address. These
are special rules formulated just for our law
firm. We are not compromising
or bending on this issue.

The second person added is De Carlo Blackwell. I
believe Mr. Blackwell is an
inspector and worked at several prisons,
including London and Lima.
Recently, I heard that he is now assigned
exclusively to London. These two
prisons were giving us a very hard time with our
mail, and we traced the
source of this trouble to him. He is implementing
Stout's directives to the
letter, and this is his reward. Kevin Woods is
another new addition from
Lima. Mr. Woods threatened one of our liaisons at
Lima. Specifically, he
told this liaison that if he tried to pass out
multiple copies of our
progress reports, he would be going into the
hole. Welcome, Mr. Woods, to our penalty box. Finally, the last person is
named Yoder and works at North
Central. He has been included because he is also
implementing Stout's
directives to the letter. In each of these cases,
we received solid evidence
from our clients of interference with our legal
mail.

Today, we expected to come out with our next
Progress Report. We also
promised you our second generation of charts.
Those charts are not quite
ready. They require a tremendous amount of work.
Norman does not do the
charts. I do this work. His timetable was just a
little too optimistic. I
expect to have them done next week. Norman's
Progress Report will accompany
them and explain their legal significance.

Sincerely,
Becki Miller
Administrative Assistant

Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:08:33 -0400





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

NORMAN SIRAK :
4035 Cinwood Street, N.W. : Judge: David A. Katz
Massillon, Ohio 44646 :
: Plaintiff, :
: Case No.: 3:03 CV 7436
v. :
: Amended Complaint for
MARGARETTE T. GHEE, : Interference and Violation
5657 Sandalwood Blvd. : Civil Rights
Columbus, Ohio 43229 :
:
and : Motion to Amend
: Pursuant to Rule 15(a)
DEREK FARMER, ESQ. :
800 Cross Pointe Rd. Ste. Q :
Gahanna, Ohio 43230-6690 :
:
and :
:
T. AUSTIN STOUT, ESQ. :
1050 Freeway Drive, North :
Columbus, Ohio 43229 :
:
and :
:
KEVIN WOODS :
2235 N.W. Street :
Lima, Ohio 45802 :
:
and :
:



DeCARLO BLACKWELL :
2235 N.W. Street :
Lima, Ohio 45802 :
:
and :
:
L. YODER :








670 Marion Williamsport Road East :
Marion, Ohio 43302 :
:
Defendants :


NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Norman Sirak, by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to FRCP 15(a) amends his Complaint against original Defendants Margarette T. Ghee and Derek Farmer: by the addition of the following four New Party Defendants, T. Austin Stout, Kevin Woods, DeCarlo Blackwell, and L. Yoder and by the addition of additional evidence of interference. For Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, he states as follows:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a 1972 graduate of American University College of Law and has been admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio in 1972 and in Washington, D.C., District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 1973.

2. Plaintiff is counsel of record for the law suit Dennis Michael, et al. v. Margarette Ghee, et al., Case No. 3:01 CV 7436, in the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, before the Honorable Judge James G. Carr, (hereinafter referred to as the “CASE”).

3. Plaintiff, in this law suit represents approximately 2,600 named Plaintiffs, all of whom are inmates in Ohio prisons with convictions under Ohio’s former sentencing law, (hereinafter referred to as “old law”).

4. Plaintiff has the constitutional right to the unfettered ability to communicate with his clients face to face or via mail. Plaintiff also has the unfettered right to be paid by his clients for his legal services. Plaintiff further has the unfettered right to conduct his attorney/client relationship with inmates free of harassment and of inflammatory misrepresentation (i.e. Defendant Ghee does not have the right to state to Plaintiff’s clients that Defendants have “won the ‘CASE’.”)

5. The Defendant Margarette T. Ghee (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Ghee) is an adult resident of Franklin County, Ohio; and, is a former member of the Ohio Parole Board who served as its Chairperson and is a named Defendant in the CASE.

6. The Defendant Derek Farmer (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Farmer) is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio. Defendant Farmer maintains his law office at 800 Cross Pointe Rd., Ste Q, Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio, 43230-6690. Upon information and belief, Defendant Farmer enjoys a social and professional relationship with Defendant Ghee.

7. Defendant T. Austin Stout (hereinafter referred to as Defendant “Stout”) is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio, employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (hereinafter referred to as "Department") as Assistant Chief Counsel. It is further believed that Defendant Stout's office is located at 1050 Freeway Drive North, Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio 43229, which is also the headquarters for the Department. Defendant Stout is being sued in his official capacity as Assistant Chief legal counsel and he is also being sued in his personal capacity as an individual.

9. Defendant Kevin Woods (hereinafter referred to as Defendant “Woods”) is an employee of the Department and it is further believed that Defendant Woods' duties and the location of his office pertain to and can be found at Lima Correctional Institution, 2235 NW Street, Lima, Ohio 45802. Defendant Woods is being sued in his official capacity as a state employee and he is also being sued in his personal capacity as an individual.

10. Defendant De Carlo Blackwell (hereinafter referred to as Defendant “Blackwell”) is an employee of the Department with the title of Inspector. It is further believed that Defendant Blackwell's duties relate to Lima Correctional Institution located at 2235 NW Street, Lima, Ohio 45802. Defendant Blackwell's duties may involve other institutions, namely London Correctional Institution and others. Defendant Blackwell is being sued in his official capacity as a state employee and he is also being sued in his personal capacity as an individual.

11. Defendant L. Yoder (hereinafter referred to as Defendant “Yoder”) is an employee of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. It is believed that Defendant Yoder's duties relate to North Central Correctional Institution, located at 670 Marion Williamsport Road East, Marion, Ohio 43302. Defendant Yoder is being sued in his official capacity as a state employee and he is also being sued in his personal capacity as an individual.

12. Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional parties to this Complaint as evidence of interference in the CASE is acquired. The CASE was filed two years ago and is in the nature of a class action law suit.
Plaintiff has about 2,600 inmate plaintiffs and has encountered interference in a myriad of different forms over this period of time. For example, Plaintiff’s clients have been refused the right to pay Plaintiff legal fees, ($10.00 per month), unless Plaintiff personally visits the client at lease once a month. We are adding John Doe and Jane Doe in lieu of these as yet unnamed parties with numbers following their names.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisdiction of the Federal Court exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. §1331 since this is a civil action arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States. This action involves a violation of federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. §1983.

14. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio since the cause of action alleged in this Complaint occurred in Lucas County of this district.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

15. The Plaintiff holds a valid license to practice law in the State of Ohio and having received said license Plaintiff has acquired a liberty and property interest in pursuing his profession as an attorney.

16. The CASE seeks a declaration from the Federal District Court that the current Ohio Parole Board guidelines are illegal; and, seeks to compel the Ohio Parole Board to enact new guidelines, in accordance with Ohio law. The CASE raises allegations that the Ohio Parole Board is denying Ohio inmates their Constitutional and Statutory rights to a meaningful Parole Board Hearing, under Ohio law.

17. Defendants in the CASE include the Director and Deputy Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and every Parole Board Member serving in this capacity during the pendency of the CASE, including Parole Board Members that have since retired. The named Defendants in the CASE control the affairs of both the Department and the Ohio Parole Board. They control access to the sequestered population making up Plaintiff's clients, consisting of Ohio inmates prosecuted under Ohio's prior old law.

18. Defendant Ghee and Defendant Farmer are private persons, but their conduct that is jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited conduct set forth in this Complaint and the conduct of both Defendant Ghee and Defendant Farmer is conduct under Color of State Law.

19. In this Amended Complaint, counsel for Plaintiff has documented a conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff's lawsuit. These are not the first instances of interference. Interference has been incessant since this lawsuit was initiated and, as of late, it is becoming increasingly coordinated and it is involving higher ranking parties; one of the parties is working at the DRC central office, Columbus, Ohio. Defendant Ghee still has connections with the DRC’s central office. Plaintiff submits that the conspiracy documented herein is part of a much larger, coordinated scheme. Further, as new parties are joined and their interference is exposed, it will become increasingly apparent that this conspiracy is being encouraged and facilitated by the individuals running the Department.

20. Defendant Farmer is a willful participant in joint activity with Defendant Ghee and is in fact a co-conspirator with Defendant Ghee and the other named Defendants to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights.

21. Defendant Ghee is the primary Defendant in the CASE because she was the Chairperson of the Ohio Parole Board from in or around 1995 to April 1, 2002, under whose direction the current Ohio Parole Board guidelines, which the CASE seeks to declare as illegal, were enacted.

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ghee has received the CASE as a direct affront to her personal and professional integrity and reputation.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ghee sees the CASE as a challenge to the policies established, enacted and/or advocated by Defendant Ghee, during her tenure as an Ohio Parole Board member.

24. Defendants’ Farmer and Ghee are further working with Defendants’ Stout, Woods, Blackwell, and Yoder, the last four (4) named Defendants being employees of the State of Ohio, and their overt actions, both cumulatively and individually, constitutes state action for purposes of jurisdiction.

25. There exists a sufficiently close enough nexus between the State of Ohio and the challenged actions of Defendants’ Farmer and Ghee, working in conjunction with Defendants’ Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder, that their conduct may fairly be treated as state conduct or conduct under Color of State Law.

26. Defendants’ Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder are all acting as agents of the State of Ohio and their actions are and should be considered as action under Color of State Law.

27. In addition, Defendants’ Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder have formed a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. Thus, in addition to taking overt actions as individuals, they are also co-conspirators and integral parts of the conspiracy. Plaintiff's civil rights and his ability to practice law are also being violated by the coordinated actions and by the impact of this conspiracy.

COUNT ONE – INTERFERENCE BY DEFENDANTS

28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all allegations set forth in paragraphs above and below and further alleges and states as follows:

29. At all relevant times, Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder had express knowledge of the CASE, the allegations contained in the CASE and the relief sought by Plaintiff for his 2,600 Ohio inmate clients, in the CASE.

30. Defendant Farmer is a former Ohio prison inmate, who appeared before the Ohio Parole Board on one (1) or more occasions, during Defendant Ghee's tenure as an Ohio Parole Board member. Upon information and belief, Defendant Farmer holds Defendant Ghee out to the public and to Ohio prison inmates in particular, as his investigator and/or consultant, on Ohio Parole Board matters. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ghee holds herself out to the public and to Ohio prison inmates in particular, as Defendant Farmer's investigator and/or consultant, for Ohio Parole Board matters.

31. At all relevant times, Anthony Williams A251-884 (hereinafter referred to as “Williams”) is an Ohio prison inmate at North Central Correctional Institution (herein after "NCCI"); and is a client of Plaintiff in the CASE.

32. During Plaintiff's representation and counsel of Williams, his mother Alma Kirk (hereinafter referred to as “Kirk”) consulted with Defendant Farmer, at his law office, for counsel and advice on her son Williams' Ohio Parole Board status.

33. During this consultation, Kirk expressly informed Defendant Farmer that her son was a client of the Plaintiff.

34. Despite Defendant Farmer's express knowledge that Williams was a client of the Plaintiff, and represented Plaintiff in the CASE, Defendant Farmer informed and/or advised Kirk as follows:

A. Defendant Farmer informed Kirk that the CASE was going nowhere and that it would not make any difference whatsoever if Williams was involved in the CASE or not;

B. That the former Chairperson of the Ohio Parole Board, Defendant Ghee, was working for the Defendant Farmer as an investigator regarding cases involving parole issues; that Defendant Ghee maintained a very close relationship with the Ohio Parole Board and enjoys social gatherings with members of the Ohio Parole Board; and, if Defendant Ghee could not get Williams a parole, then no one could; and,

C. That if Kirk wanted to get her son Williams a parole, the only way that would happen was through Defendant Farmer and Defendant Ghee, because Defendant Ghee held great influence over the Ohio Parole Board.

35. Based on the information and/or counsel as more fully set forth above, Defendant Farmer collected an additional $500.00 from Kirk, for purposes of asking Defendant Ghee to assess Williams' Ohio Parole Board status.
36. Soon thereafter, on or around May 27, 2003, Defendant Farmer instructed Alma Kirk to deliver a letter, giving Defendant Farmer and Defendant Ghee permission to have a professional visit with Williams at NCCI.

37. Williams never signed any type of documentation at NCCI to authorize any type of personal visit from Defendant Ghee.

38. On or around May 30, 2003, Williams was personally seen by Defendant Ghee at NCCI.

39. At such time as Defendant Ghee made her unauthorized visit with Williams at NCCI, Defendant Farmer had express knowledge that Williams was a client of Plaintiff's, and represented Plaintiff in the CASE. Defendant Ghee, as Defendant Farmer’s special investigator can also be charged with express knowledge that Williams was a client of Plaintiff's, and represented Plaintiff in the CASE.

40. During Defendant Ghee's unauthorized visit of Williams, Defendant Ghee had with her what Plaintiff believes to be privileged prison records/file without Defendant Williams knowledge, consent and/or permission.

41. During Defendant Ghee's unauthorized personal visit with Williams at NCCI, she informed and/or counseled Williams as follows:

A. That Williams was not eligible for a "Layne review" because he was not outside of his Ohio Parole Board guidelines;

B. That Williams would not be paroled at his "half time review", and that Williams would have to serve at least 15 years incarceration and get his GED, before Williams would ever be considered for an Ohio parole; and,

C. Defendant Ghee informed Williams that he was not eligible to be a named Plaintiff and a member of the CASE and that he had just wasted his money by joining the CASE. Defendant Ghee, at this time, spoke very disparagingly about Plaintiff and the CASE.

D. The Defendant Ghee also informed Williams that the Defendants, of whom she was one, had already won the CASE.

42. Defendant Ghee’s statement to Williams that the Defendants have already won the CASE, was directly calculated to erode support among inmate clients of Plaintiff.

43. The above set forth conduct of Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer in conjunction with Defendants’ Stout, Yoder, Woods, and Blackwell was done knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously. Further all six (6) of said Defendants acted in concert with one another to interfere with Plaintiffs’ practice of law to wit: legal representation of Williams and all other Ohio inmates similarly situated to Williams, who are clients of Plaintiff in the CASE.

44. The above described conduct of Defendants Ghee and Farmer and the other named Defendants was done illegally without right and privilege; was done illegally and/or in violation of numerous Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rules; and, was done with the purpose of causing Williams, and all of Plaintiff’s 2,600 other clients who are Plaintiffs in the CASE, to discontinue their attorney client relationship with the Plaintiff.

45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Ghee, and Farmer along with the other named Defendants tortuous interference, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case.

46. Because Defendants Ghee and Farmer along with the other named Defendants tortuous interference was done intentionally, illegally and maliciously, without any right and/or justification other than to harm the Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law.

COUNT TWO - CIVIL CONSPIRACY

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all allegations set forth in paragraphs above and below and further alleges and states as follows:

48. Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer along with the other named Defendants have maliciously combined to cause damage, injury and harm to Plaintiff, through their tortuous interference with Plaintiff's representation of Williams and others, to wit: Plaintiff’s approximately 2,600 clients, all of whom are Plaintiffs in the CASE.
49. Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer along with the other named Defendants have conspired together to tortuously interfere with Plaintiff's representation of Williams and others, to wit: Plaintiff's approximate 2,600 clients, all of whom are Plaintiff's in the CASE; and, to tortuously interfere with the CASE, which was brought by Plaintiff, as counsel of record for the named Plaintiff and approximately 2,600 Ohio inmates, all of whom are Plaintiffs in the CASE.

50. The malicious combination and conspiracy of Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer along with the other named Defendants, required both to act in concert with one another, as each needed the other to accomplish their combined unlawful act of tortuously interfering with Plaintiff's representation of his 2,600 Ohio inmate clients, all of whom are Plaintiffs in the CASE.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer along with the other Defendants malicious combination and conspiracy, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case.

52. Because the malicious combination and conspiracy of Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer along with the other Defendants was done intentionally, illegally and maliciously, without any right and/or justification other than to harm the Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law.

COUNT THREE – INTERFERENCE WITH LEGAL MAIL

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all allegations set forth in paragraphs above and below and further alleges and states as follows:

54. Defendant Ghee’s former position included an office at DRC’s central office in Columbus, Ohio, where she still maintains substantial influence. Defendant Stout currently works as Assistant Legal Counsel for the Department at its central office. The central office of the Department coordinates all of the affairs of the Department. The actions of Defendants, Ghee and Stout and, through them Farmer, Blackwell, Woods and Yoder originate at the Department in the central office. Further, these overt acts collectively merge and become one conspiracy at DRC’s central office, where Plaintiff’s legal practice is encountering interference.

55. All mail arriving for inmates must be processed in a mail room at the prison. The Department opens, reads and may copy this mail before delivering it to inmates. This right of privacy is one of the protections forfeited by prisoners once they are incarcerated for crimes.

56. An exception exists for Legal Mail. Department Administrative Rule 5120-9-17 (B)(1) states that Legal Mail shall not be opened, read and copied. Paragraph (B)(2) of this Department Administrative Rule defines Legal Mail as "mail addressed to an inmate clearly bearing the return address of an attorney–at–law, a public service law office, a law school legal clinic, court of law, or the correctional institution inspection committee. It may be opened and inspected for contraband only in the presence of the inmate-addressee."

57. On June 6, 2003, Defendant Stout sent a letter to Plaintiff regarding Legal Mail. In this letter, Defendant Stout stated that mail from Plaintiff's Canton and Defiance Offices, when clearly marked as legal mail, would be treated as legal mail. Mail coming from other sources would not be accorded legal mail status. Defendant Stout was referring to mail sent by sponsors of inmates, containing progress reports on this law suit, court filings and suggested terms for affidavits posted upon Plaintiffs' web site,
HYPERLINK "http://www.paroleboardprisoners.com"
www.paroleboardprisoners.com
.

58. In a response to Defendant Stout dated June 19, 2003, Plaintiff agreed to ask sponsors of inmates to cease sending in mail originating from him but being mailed by a sponsor as legal mail, and to send this via regular mail in the future.

59. Plaintiff did not make any further concessions. No burdens of any kind were agreed upon and were to be placed upon Plaintiffs incoming legal mail to clients originating from Defiance and Canton, Ohio in the mind of Plaintiff.

60. Shortly after this exchange of correspondence, Defendant Stout sent out instructions to burden the legal mail from Plaintiff as follows:

(a) Mail bearing Plaintiffs name but not originating from Plaintiffs' Canton Office will no longer be accorded the status of Legal Mail and it would be processed as Regular Mail.

(b) The postmark on the envelope would become the determining factor as to whether or not the mail originated from Plaintiff's Canton Office. If this postmark was not from Canton, Ohio, where Plaintiffs' primary office is located, it could be presumed that it was not from Plaintiff and it could be opened, read, copied and in general, treated as Regular Mail.

(c) If an envelope is hand addressed, this mail could be opened, read, copied and in general treated as Regular Mail because a hand addressed envelope constituted a defect which, in Defendant Stout's opinion, disqualified this mail from treatment as Legal Mail.

61. Because of these additional burdens, the only mail sent by Plaintiff that can properly qualify for treatment as Legal Mail is a letter with a postmark that agrees with the Canton, Ohio return address and the envelope may not be hand addressed. Given these burdens, literally no correspondence from Plaintiff can qualify for treatment as Legal Mail. Plaintiff has always hand-addressed correspondence and continues to hand-address correspondence.

62. Pursuant to Defendant Stout's instructions, Legal Mail from Plaintiff's Defiance, Ohio office has been treated as Regular Mail, meaning that it has been opened, read and may have been copied before being delivered to the inmate. This mail has been disqualified from treatment as Legal mail because the postmark on the envelope did not agree with Plaintiffs return address in Canton, Ohio. These letters arrive at the prison enclosed in Plaintiff's' legal envelopes where they clearly set forth Plaintiff’s law firm and further state “Legal Mail”, and they have been sent out by a staff member of his law firm. Mail sent from Defiance may bear a postmark from Defiance if it is sent during regular working hours, or it may bear a postmark from Toledo if it is mailed after normal business hours, but it will never bear a postmark from Canton, Ohio, and this has become the only postmark that is acceptable to Defendants.

63. The above described burdens are not contemplated by Department Administrative Rule 5120-9-17 (B)(2) and constitute burdens that have not been applied to the incoming “Legal Mail” of other attorneys.

64. On June 14, 2003, Defendant Blackwell justified the overt act of opening a letter from Plaintiff's Defiance, Ohio office to Mr. Robert Gilbert A207865, although the letter in question was clearly marked as legal mail. Mr. Blackwell stated that the letter in question was disqualified from being considered legal mail because its postmark did not match the Canton, Ohio return address. This admission was made in writing and in person as Defendant Blackwell responded to a grievance filed Mr. Gilbert.
65. On July 24, 2003, Defendant Yoder's overt act consisted of justifying the opening of a letter from Plaintiff's Defiance, Ohio office to John Karcher A284251, although the letter in question was clearly marked as legal mail and bore a Defiance, Ohio postmark where Plaintiff's satellite office is located. Mr. Yoder gave as his reason, that the letter in question was disqualified from being considered legal mail because its postmark did not match the Canton, Ohio return address. This admission was made on July 25, 2003, as Defendant Yoder answered a grievance filed by Mr. Karcher on July 24, 2003.

66. On June 24, 2003, Don Miller A286274 was called to Defendant Woods' office at Lima Correctional Institution. Mr. Miller is a liaison for Plaintiff at Lima Correctional Institution. For the past two years, Plaintiff has sent in multiple copies of progress reports and court filings to liaisons at different prisons, and these liaisons have distributed these reports and court filings to other clients. Defendant Woods' overt act consisted of telling Mr. Miller that if he continued the practice of distributing the multiple copies of Plaintiff's attorney/client correspondence coming into the prison, he would be disciplined. Although the specific nature of the discipline was not made clear, it was clear that the matter would be recorded on the inmate's record as discipline, and that the discipline could result in some loss of privileges, plus it would be reported to the Parole Board and it could further serve as justification for making Mr. Miller serve additional time. This action on the part of Defendant Woods had an instant chilling effect upon Plaintiff's liaison and upon Plaintiff's ability to distribute his attorney-client correspondence to other clients at Lima Correctional Institution. Since this meeting occurred between Defendant Woods and Mr. Miller, Plaintiff had to find a replacement liaison because Mr. Miller was not willing to suffer the consequences clearly issued by Defendant Woods at this June 24, 2003 meeting.

67. The above described overt acts of Defendants Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder coupled with the overt acts of Defendants’ Ghee and Farmer also constitute tortuous interference with Plaintiff's civil rights and with Plaintiff's ability to practice law and to adequately keep his clients informed. The above conduct of all six (6) of these Defendants was done knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously, with a direct purpose of interfering with Plaintiff legitimate practice of law, to wit: legal representation of Ohio inmates in the CASE.

68. The above described conduct of Defendants Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder was done with the express intent to maliciously and tortuously interfere with Plaintiff’s attorney/client relationship with his approximately 2,600 Ohio inmate clients, all of whom are Plaintiffs in the CASE.
69. The above described conduct of the Defendants Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder was done without right and privilege; was done illegally and in violation of the Department's Administrative Rule 5120-9-17(B)(2), which makes no reference whatsoever to the postmark on an envelope or to the stipulation that the address cannot be hand written on the envelope. These overt acts by Defendants were done for the purpose of intercepting and converting to its own use, the confidential attorney/client communications between Plaintiff and these clients. These overt acts are also having a chilling effect upon the dissemination of privileged and protected communications from Plaintiff to inmate clients at Lima and North Central Correctional Institutions. Unless stopped, these overt acts can spread and interfere with Plaintiff's ability to communicate with inmate clients in other prisons. This danger is particularly real, given Defendant Stout's position of authority as Assistant Chief Counsel for the Department and the location of his office at the Department's headquarters.

70. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder's tortuous interference, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case.

71. Because Defendants' Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder's tortuous interference was done intentionally, illegally and maliciously, without any right and/or justification other than to harm the Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law.

COUNT FOUR - CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH MAIL

72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all allegations set forth in paragraphs above and below and further alleges and states as follows:

73. Defendants’ Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder have maliciously combined to cause damage, injury and harm to Plaintiff, through their tortuous interference with Plaintiff's representation of his named Plaintiffs in the CASE.

74. Defendants' Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Woods, Blackwell and Yoder have conspired together to tortuously interfere with Plaintiff's representation of his approximately 2,600 clients, all of whom are Plaintiff's in the CASE; and, to tortuously interfere with the CASE, which was brought by Plaintiff, as counsel of record for the approximately 2,600 Ohio inmates.

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Blackwell, Woods and Yoder's malicious combination and conspiracy, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case.

76. Because the malicious combination and conspiracy of the Defendants' Farmer, Ghee, Stout, Blackwell, Woods and Yoder was done intentionally, illegally and maliciously, without any right and/or justification other than to harm the Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Norman Sirak demands Judgment against Defendants' Ghee, Farmer, Stout, Blackwell, Woods and Yoder jointly and severely, in an amount which exceeds $25,000.00, the exact amount to be proven at the trial of this case; punitive damages at the highest rate allowed by law; pre and post judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law; his costs and expenses incurred in prosecuting this litigation, including reasonable attorneys fees; and, such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Norman Sirak demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Leonard W. Yelsky
By: Leonard W. Yelsky
YELSKY & LONARDO
Ohio Reg. No. 0034277
1050 Leader Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(216) 781-2550

Counsel for Plaintiff, Norman Sirak

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 13, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/Leonard W. Yelsky



A motion for certification is pending and has been scheduled for consideration after the parties have submitted Rule 56(c) motions and these motions have been decided on their merits.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_PID_HLINKS
http://www.paroleboardprisoners.com/
__________________
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:17 PM
bebopp7's Avatar
bebopp7 bebopp7 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 605
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Default

what happened to thi scase?
__________________
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:29 PM
sdylan06's Avatar
sdylan06 sdylan06 is offline
Queen of Dylan's Heart
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 2,649
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

i have no clue is this about interference w/mail? my man's at north central so i just tried to skim down to that part! i guess if i read it all i'd understand!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:35 PM
bebopp7's Avatar
bebopp7 bebopp7 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 605
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Default

yeah
__________________
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"A view from inside the prison system" cember Alabama General Prison Talk, Introductions & Chit Chat 10 09-28-2006 08:00 PM
NYTimes:Private Health Care in Jails Can Be a Death Sentence titantoo World Prison News 2 03-08-2005 03:42 AM
Bill H.R. 1829 sherri13 Prison Legislation & Laws 1 05-27-2003 09:37 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:39 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2019 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics