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






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM > Federal System News, Events and Legal Issues
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Federal System News, Events and Legal Issues News & Events relating to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Courts, Department of Justice and any legal questions you may have dealing with the Federal system.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-20-2006, 09:17 AM
infowanted infowanted is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Walmart Vice Chairman Sentenced

Facing 28 years in prison the judge sentenced the Walmart Executive to 27 months of Home Confinement, 5 years probation, and restitution. He was charged with wire fraud and tax evasion. He took over $500,000 dollars from Walmart. Talk about judges descretion and unequal protection under the law. My husband was sentenced on one count of embezzlement for $56, is a first time offender, non-violent, no drugs and he gets 10 months in prison, a year of supervision, and restitution. He should have worked for Walmart and embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars. LOL!!!!!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-20-2006, 09:31 AM
SusanT's Avatar
SusanT SusanT is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: none
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Infowanted, I understand your frustration.

Unfortunately, unless you read someone's PSR and are in the court during the sentencing you really don't know all the facts. We certainly can't get the whole truth from our media who like to sensationalize their stories to generate more advertising revenue.

It helps to do a Google search on things like this and read the dozens of articles before reaching a conclusion.

The fact that the AUSA only requested a very short sentence speaks volumes.



By The Associated Press

Thomas Coughlin, 57, avoided any prison time but was ordered also to serve five years probation, and pay a $50,000 fine and about $411,000 in restitution to Wal-Mart Stores and the Internal Revenue Service.

Prosecutors had asked for Coughlin to serve six months to a year in prison, but U.S. District Judge Robert Dawson agreed with a doctor who testified that Coughlin's health was too poor for prison.
Coughlin pleaded guilty in January to stealing items from the world's largest retailer that were worth just a fraction of the millions of dollars he earned in salary, bonuses and stock options.

"There is no excuse for my conduct," Coughlin said during the hearing.

Dawson said Coughlin had been an exemplary citizen before this case and had already been punished by the surrounding publicity. Dawson also noted that Coughlin still faces the possibility of losing his retirement benefits if Wal-Mart succeeds with a civil lawsuit that is under appeal.
__________________
If recent incarceration rates continue, 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in prison during their lifetime.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics


Last edited by SusanT; 08-20-2006 at 09:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-23-2006, 12:59 PM
Razorgirl Razorgirl is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arkansas usa
Posts: 148
Thanks: 2
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Default

I thought medical centers were for inmates whose health was poor. They sent our governor of Ar Jim Guy Tucker and x gov of La Edwin Edwards to Ft. Worth medical seems that would be an appropriate place
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-23-2006, 03:12 PM
fartoodeep123 fartoodeep123 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: CO, USA
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SusanT
Infowanted, I understand your frustration.

Unfortunately, unless you read someone's PSR and are in the court during the sentencing you really don't know all the facts. We certainly can't get the whole truth from our media who like to sensationalize their stories to generate more advertising revenue.

It helps to do a Google search on things like this and read the dozens of articles before reaching a conclusion.

The fact that the AUSA only requested a very short sentence speaks volumes.



By The Associated Press

Thomas Coughlin, 57, avoided any prison time but was ordered also to serve five years probation, and pay a $50,000 fine and about $411,000 in restitution to Wal-Mart Stores and the Internal Revenue Service.

Prosecutors had asked for Coughlin to serve six months to a year in prison, but U.S. District Judge Robert Dawson agreed with a doctor who testified that Coughlin's health was too poor for prison.
Coughlin pleaded guilty in January to stealing items from the world's largest retailer that were worth just a fraction of the millions of dollars he earned in salary, bonuses and stock options.

"There is no excuse for my conduct," Coughlin said during the hearing.

Dawson said Coughlin had been an exemplary citizen before this case and had already been punished by the surrounding publicity. Dawson also noted that Coughlin still faces the possibility of losing his retirement benefits if Wal-Mart succeeds with a civil lawsuit that is under appeal.
Come on now. The guy stole $500,000 and avoided paying taxes. And he gets home detention. We all know that if he was a cashier at Walmart, he'd be sitting in jail for many years. And yet the judges and AUSA's really believe in this concept of justice. It is a twisted system and that's the end of the story.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2006, 10:21 PM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Susan is right you don't know what was in his PSR or the circumstances. He who is without sin cast the first stone. Are you judging us all like you are judging him?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-28-2006, 10:41 AM
fartoodeep123 fartoodeep123 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: CO, USA
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrthrock
Susan is right you don't know what was in his PSR or the circumstances. He who is without sin cast the first stone. Are you judging us all like you are judging him?
No, I am not judging you or anyone else. I am looking at my experiences and cases like this and drawing the obvious conclusion that anyone who believes that the courts hand down real justice is delusional.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-28-2006, 10:56 AM
june5 june5 is offline
Account Closed
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 3,404 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

Clarence Darrow said, "there is no such thing as justice, in or out of court."

I know we are not supposed to discuss how fair individual sentences are and such on this board, so I will just say that if this sentence is fair for the Walmart exec., it ought to be the exact same sentence ANYBODY gets for embezzlement. If the exec. can sit at home, there should be not one person sitting in prison for embezzlement.

To me, it seems pretty judgmental to say, "we don't know his circumstances." It sounds kind of like saying, maybe THIS guy is better than some OTHER guy who did the same crime, doesn't it? One guy is no more deserving of going to prison for embezzlement than the next guy. So it is apparently alright if we judge 2 people who committed the same exact crime based on some non-crime related circumstances?!

That's why I don't like the "circumstances" thing. I think they should even the playing field for everybody--if you do crime "whatever" this is the sentence you get, no matter who you are. That's what I call equality.

Last edited by june5; 08-28-2006 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:41 AM
fartoodeep123 fartoodeep123 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: CO, USA
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by june5
Clarence Darrow said, "there is no such thing as justice, in or out of court."

I know we are not supposed to discuss how fair individual sentences are and such on this board, so I will just say that if this sentence is fair for the Walmart exec., it ought to be the exact same sentence ANYBODY gets for embezzlement. If the exec. can sit at home, there should be not one person sitting in prison for embezzlement.

To me, it seems pretty judgmental to say, "we don't know his circumstances." It sounds kind of like saying, maybe THIS guy is better than some OTHER guy who did the same crime, doesn't it? One guy is no more deserving of going to prison for embezzlement than the next guy. So it is apparently alright if we judge 2 people who committed the same exact crime based on some non-crime related circumstances?!

That's why I don't like the "circumstances" thing. I think they should even the playing field for everybody--if you do crime "whatever" this is the sentence you get, no matter who you are. That's what I call equality.
My point exactly. There is no level playing field. From your financial resources that decide what lawyer you receive to the particular district you are prosecuted in and the judge's mood on that fateful day. But still I get the impression that the people who work on the government's side really believe in what they are doing and really believe that it is fair and just. They don't question it at all. And that's a little scary.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-28-2006, 08:45 PM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by june5
To me, it seems pretty judgmental to say, "we don't know his circumstances."
So its judgemental to point out that no one knows the circumstances but it isn't judgement to say his sentence isn't fair because he was an exec at Walmart? Wow.

I will be the first to say that the system isn't fair but I don't see blanket sentences regarless of the case or circumstances being any more fair.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-28-2006, 08:53 PM
june5 june5 is offline
Account Closed
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 3,404 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrthrock
So its judgemental to point out that no one knows the circumstances but it isn't judgement to say his sentence isn't fair because he was an exec at Walmart? Wow.

I will be the first to say that the system isn't fair but I don't see blanket sentences regarless of the case or circumstances being any more fair.
I see what you are saying. It would not be fair to say this guy should get more time for what he did just because he is an exec.

I'm saying it is more fair to have blanket sentences, because, let's take me for instance. I have all kinds of factors "in my favor." But to keep with the embezzlement situation, let's say I woke up one morning and embezzled 500K (which I would never do). So let's say some other person embezzles 500K. We both would have embezzled 500K, right? So why should I get any more special treatment than the next guy? The CRIME is the same, no matter who does it.

Last edited by june5; 08-28-2006 at 08:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:00 PM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by june5
I see what you are saying. It would not be fair to say this guy should get more time for what he did just because he is an exec.

I'm saying it is more fair to have blanket sentences, because, let's take me for instance. I have all kinds of factors "in my favor." But to keep with the embezzlement situation, let's say I woke up one morning and embezzled 500K (which I would never do). So let's say some other person embezzles 500K. We both would have embezzled 500K, right? So why should I get any more special treatment than the next guy? The CRIME is the same, no matter who does it.
But though all crimes are the same, the circumstances behind the crime aren't always the same. No crime can be covered by a blanket sentence, that is why we have a range for sentencing and not just a set sentence. That is also why we have the PSR.

Take my case for example. I am accused not of 500K but of over 3 million. What punishment do you suppose I should get? Well if you don't know the circumstances you would assume somewhere in the neighborhood of 23 points which is 46-57 months and restitution of $3 million. Now if you look at the circumstances, which are that the complaintant in my case actually didn't lose the $3 million but actually made many millions more and that I didn't actually do anything but only owned the company accused of the illegal acts you might come up with the same opinion as the PO that did the PSR and recommend no time and no restitution. Maybe you think I would get this sentence because I was rich but you would be wrong because not only am I broke now but I used a public defender who is available to anyone that needs one.

So even though the Wal Mart exec is much richer than I am and stole much less than I am accused of, we are getting the same sentence (assuming the judge follows the PSR).

Last edited by rrthrock; 08-28-2006 at 11:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:02 AM
june5 june5 is offline
Account Closed
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 3,404 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrthrock
But though all crimes are the same, the circumstances behind the crime aren't always the same. No crime can be covered by a blanket sentence, that is why we have a range for sentencing and not just a set sentence. That is also why we have the PSR.

Take my case for example. I am accused not of 500K but of over 3 million. What punishment do you suppose I should get? Well if you don't know the circumstances you would assume somewhere in the neighborhood of 23 points which is 46-57 months and restitution of $3 million. Now if you look at the circumstances, which are that the complaintant in my case actually didn't lose the $3 million but actually made many millions more and that I didn't actually do anything but only owned the company accused of the illegal acts you might come up with the same opinion as the PO that did the PSR and recommend no time and no restitution. Maybe you think I would get this sentence because I was rich but you would be wrong because not only am I broke now but I used a public defender who is available to anyone that needs one.

So even though the Wal Mart exec is much richer than I am and stole much less than I am accused of, we are getting the same sentence (assuming the judge follows the PSR).

You know what? I think we are talking about 2 different kinds of circumstances. I'll try to break down where I am coming from:

I agree that this crime-related circumstance matters: Whether the person fully intended to commit the crime, knowing that what he/she did was illegal (steal the money, defraud the company, etc.) So from what you described of your case, yes, I agree that your circumstances do make a difference, they are crime-specific.

The circumstances that I don't think should matter: These are the circumstances I hear alot about that bug me. And I am not speaking specifically about anyone here, at all.
I have a family, I do charity work, I am a good citizen "except for this", etc. Those circumstances, IMHO, should make no difference.

I don't think it's fair to judge a white-collar embezzler any more or less harshly than a blue-collar purse snatcher. It seems like alot of times people think one is better than the other. Money is stolen either way.

Last edited by june5; 08-29-2006 at 10:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:34 AM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I understand your position though I do not agree with it. Let me ask you this though, when talking about sentences do you also think its not fair that RDAP people get up to a year off of their sentence and those without a drug problem do not?

Just curious.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:37 AM
june5 june5 is offline
Account Closed
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 3,404 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

I know that RDAP is for people with substance-abuse issues, but I am not sure of the exact circumstances that allow people to get into that program. Is that for people arrested for specific drug crimes, like possession, or people arrested for any crime, that happen to also have a drug problem?

Since I am not sure, I would have to qualify my answer:

If a person is arrested for simple drug possession for individual use, I would say, fair enough, send the person to treatment.

If, and I say if, because I am not very familiar with the RDAP program, let's say one person, for example, robs a house while on drugs and gets this program and gets out earlier than a person who was sober while robbing a house, that doesn't seem fair to me because they both robbed a house. That would be like saying it's better to do drugs while committing a crime because you'll get less time.

As an aside, many state sentencing structures give "extra" points if the crime was committed while someone was under the influence, so "under the influence" folks serve more time than the sober folks. Which, obviously, I do not agree with.

So to get back to "Wal-Mart" guy. If wal-mart guy had embezzled 500K from me, I'm now 500K short. Whether he has a family, does charity work, was high or sober. If some "average joe" got high and embezzled 500K from me, I'm also still 500K short. Know what I'm sayin'?

Last edited by june5; 08-29-2006 at 11:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-29-2006, 07:31 PM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by june5
So to get back to "Wal-Mart" guy. If wal-mart guy had embezzled 500K from me, I'm now 500K short. Whether he has a family, does charity work, was high or sober. If some "average joe" got high and embezzled 500K from me, I'm also still 500K short. Know what I'm sayin'?
Well the WalMart guy is giving restitution you wouldn't be out anything with the Wal Mart guy. Its likely if the average joe stole the money from you it'd be long gone. That that matter to you in sentencing?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-29-2006, 08:11 PM
june5 june5 is offline
Account Closed
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 3,404 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

Another good point,rrthrock. But I have to GET the restitution, right? So if Wal-mart guy stole my money, I have to call the cops, go through all kinds of legal proceedings, and then he would be ordered to pay the restitution. What are the odds he's cutting me a check for 500K on the spot? And what about all my time and trouble in getting my money back?

Now true, maybe average joe will never pay me one single dime back. But how is it fair to say basically if you have the capacity to pay the money back, you can buy your way out of jail?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-29-2006, 08:23 PM
cjjack's Avatar
cjjack cjjack is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,162
Thanks: 0
Thanked 98 Times in 17 Posts
Default

It was commonplace in prison for white-collar offenders to consider themselves better than the drug offenders, the drug offenders thought they were better than the white-collar offenders, the marijuana dealer thought he/she was better than the corner crack dealer, and so on and so on. I do not think the Wal-Mart person's sentence was fair. How many "common" people get that kind of sentence? How many so-called drug offenders get that kind of sentence? What is unfair IMO is that prosecutors can use the word of one offender to prosecute many without a whole lot of proof. There are a few excellent PBS specials that you can view on their website, one is called "Plea" and the other "Snitch." Very enlightening as to how our system works.

Our federal criminal justice system is fractured, period. I personally do not see it getting better, I see it getting worse. After all, who cares about a bunch of criminals languishing in prison for years on end?


As far as RDAP goes, I do believe that it is getting more difficult to get in as many people view the program as simply an early release program. I knew many women who were not getting time off and were very happy to be in the program. If you look up the TRIAD study done by the BOP it conclusively shows that completion of the program does reduce the rate of recidivism. Women especially are sentenced to horribly long sentences simply because they were addicted to drugs and chosed the wrong partner so that they could feed their addiction. The RDAP program is a difficult one. It is not sitting in an AA/NA meeting once a week and then after nine months getting time off of your sentence. It is intensive. I had a wonderful DAP instructor and I credit the program with giving me the tools to make better decisions in my life.

I do believe that there does need to be more rehabilitation programs across the board. And FEDERAL PAROLE!

No offense to anyone here, these are just my own personal thoughts......
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-30-2006, 12:31 AM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by june5
Another good point,rrthrock. But I have to GET the restitution, right? So if Wal-mart guy stole my money, I have to call the cops, go through all kinds of legal proceedings, and then he would be ordered to pay the restitution. What are the odds he's cutting me a check for 500K on the spot? And what about all my time and trouble in getting my money back?

Now true, maybe average joe will never pay me one single dime back. But how is it fair to say basically if you have the capacity to pay the money back, you can buy your way out of jail?

He's already been ordered to pay and agreed to pay the restitution. I can't imagine there are many more hurdles since the court has already ordered it and he's agreed to it. which if he had taken it from you instead of Wal Mart would still be the case. Most cases like this the court orders the restitution so I don't think its as difficult as you think.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-30-2006, 06:21 AM
SusanT's Avatar
SusanT SusanT is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: none
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Just this morning on the front page of the Austin Statesman (along with the staffer's 30 day week-end sentence for embezzlement) was an article regarding a legislator who with his wife was purchasing property, giving his half to her and then "renting" the house from her with campaign funds (which pays off the mortgage) so they could live there while in session.

The laws he helped write say you can't purchase real estate with campaign funds (he didn't), but they (the lawmakers) wrote in a loop hole for themselves.

His defense: "everyone's doing it".

The Wal-mart guy was very ill and is involved in a civil suit which will probably result in the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits. I would'nt wish "dying in prison" or "being seriously ill and dependent on BOP medical care" on my worst enemy.

Revenge isn't important, it's our safety that is critical. That's why I believe non-violent offenders should be punished in other ways than incarceration.
__________________
If recent incarceration rates continue, 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in prison during their lifetime.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:04 PM
Mrs.Bike Mrs.Bike is offline
silenced
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 380
Thanks: 2
Thanked 45 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Susan I haven't lived in Texas for over 26 years but even as far away as Oregon is I can smell a Texas Republican . . . am I right?

Mrs.Bike
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-30-2006, 03:18 PM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Why does the political party matter?

Renting a spouses separate property is legal according to an opinion written by the ethics commission. It may suck but it doesn't make it illegal and with so many politicians apparantly doing it I imagine it won't change anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-30-2006, 09:29 PM
Mrs.Bike Mrs.Bike is offline
silenced
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 380
Thanks: 2
Thanked 45 Times in 33 Posts
Default

I didn't say the political party "mattered".

Last edited by Mrs.Bike; 08-30-2006 at 09:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-30-2006, 10:45 PM
rrthrock rrthrock is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.Bike
I didn't say the political party "mattered".
I don't understand then why you are smelling a Texas republican? Politicians from both parties are equally as questionable to me. When i read the I thought damn politicians, not damn republicans but thats me.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:30 AM
Mrs.Bike Mrs.Bike is offline
silenced
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 380
Thanks: 2
Thanked 45 Times in 33 Posts
Default

I understand.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-31-2006, 09:01 AM
june5 june5 is offline
Account Closed
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 3,404 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

I'm starting to think maybe I'm "old fashioned." What sentence is appropriate for wal-mart guy, I don't know.

Am I the only person left alive who thinks stealing is wrong? I mean, totally wrong?

I'm not talking about revenge here, or some really long sentence. I also would not wish someone to be dependent on some horrible medical care.

But, if you steal from your boss, it shouldn't be that surprising if you lose your medical benefits, seems like common sense to me.

As it has been said in other threads, sometimes it is hard to understand a person's meaning from just a written post. I'm just trying to figure out where everyone else is coming from here.

Is it now not offensive nor considered theft to some folks, as long as the theif can pay restitution?

Violent/Non-Violent seems a little too general, IMHO, to decide who should go to jail or not. I would think it should depend on degree. I would rather be punched in the face and have a black eye than have someone steal all my money.
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
Sentenced and Really Scared angiew Headed to Prison 12 02-26-2008 11:05 AM
Article: Inmate Sentenced For Threatening Letters California Sunshine SOUTH DAKOTA Prison & Criminal Justice Discussions 1 11-01-2006 10:27 AM
sentenced in october RIKWIN Federal General Prison Talk, Introductions & Chit Chat 4 08-02-2006 10:16 PM
Sending good thoughts to jaded_angel ~ her guy is being sentenced today JJT Washington General Prison Talk, News, Introductions & Chit Chat 8 06-18-2006 05:25 PM
Getting Sentenced Reduced cottonlilly Federal General Prison Talk, Introductions & Chit Chat 1 05-30-2006 09:35 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics