THE STATE OF THE (PRISON)UNION
CRACK-RATIO SENTENCES, RETROACTIVITY, GOOD TIME & PAROLE - WHERE ARE WE HEADING?
H.R. 3245 - THE CRACK-RATIO BILL
&
THE BURNING QUESTION:
WILL IT APPLY RETROACTIVELY?
We all remember the Schoolhouse Rock segment about how a bill becomes a law. So where does the infamous crack-ratio bill, aka H.R. 3245 stand?
Since the April 29, 2009 hearings in the Senate, several district courts have announced that they will no longer
follow the Guidelines and that they have categorically rejected the punishments applied to crack cocaine offenders. See, United States of America v. Gully, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42888 (N.D. Iowa May 18, 2009)(the court has the authority and the duty to reject crack cocaine penalties and the use of a 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio is the appropriate sentencing methodology in crack cocaine cases); United States v. Rodriguez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53290 (N.D. Ill, June 23, 2009)(court finds the
crack penalty to be greater than necessary and government does not oppose sentencing court’s decision to disregard the "crack" cocaine Guidelines and sentence defendant below range dictated by those penalties); United States v. Lewis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48081 *13 (D.C., June 9, 2009)(noting that the crack cocaine penalties are presumptively unjust and that "this Court will apply the 1-to-1 ratio in all crack cocaine cases and then will separately consider all aggravating factors applicable in any individual case, such as violence, injury, recidivism or possession or use of weapons.")
Although courts have already begun
sentencing based upon the 1:1 crack ratio as set forth in President Obama's Proclamation, legislation is now pending in the House to officially make this the "law of the land". H.R. 3245 eliminates the crack to powder ratio and treats both substances the same, applying the law currently in effect for powder to all forms of cocaine including base. This bill is also known as the "Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing
Act of 2009" and was introduced on July 16th. It has already won approval of the House Judiciary Committee on July 28, 2009 in a 16-9 vote and now moves on, hopefully to approval from the full House of Representatives sometime this fall. However, it has not yet been scheduled for a vote.
FOR THOSE JUST TUNING IN...
Under current law, five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine trigger the same five-year sentence. Fifty grams of crack cocaine and five kilograms of powder cocaine trigger the same 10-year sentence. If H.R. 3245 becomes law, crack and powder cocaine mandatory minimums will be equal: 500 grams will require five years and five kilos (or 5,000 grams) will require 10 years, no matter what form of cocaine is involved.
WILL THE BILL APPLY RETROACTIVELY?
It should be noted that the bill does NOT allow for retroactive application, meaning that if it passes in its current form, it would not apply to those already serving mandatory minimum sentences for crack-cocaine convictions. The good news is that a bill can change many times before becoming law. A bill must pass through the House and the Senate before it can go to the President for consideration. Although the Senate has not yet introduced a bill, we understand that Senator Richard Durbuin (D-IL) will likely soon introduce such a bill that would equalize powder-cocaine and crack-cocaine. In the Senate a bill will go through the same process as a House bill (subcommittee, committee and floor vote). If there are differences in the bill that has passed the Senate than the bill that was passed by the House, the two bills will go to a conference committee which is made up of members of both the House and the Senate. This conference committee must settle any differences between the two bills. Once the bill is rewritten it will be reintroduced to the House and the Senate to be voted on once again. If the bill passes in both chambers it will be presented to President Obama for his consideration. It should be noted that President Obama pledged in his campaign to abolish the disparity between penalties for powder and crack cocaine.
Based upon the overwhelming impacts that such a bill would have, it is projected that the changes that will be made before the final votes of the Senate and House will be the issue of the retroactive application of the law should it pass. It seems nearly impossible for the government to agree that current process used is too harsh and yet not consider it for those who are already serving their sentences under the “old system”. Similar to the guidelines changes of 2007, we anticipate that this bill will be morphed into one that is fair to ALL - those incarcerated and already serving their time under the old system and those who are still awaiting sentencing for crack-cocaine convictions.
Ever since the implementation of the new 1:1 ratio rule by the Justice Department for crack-cocaine sentences, many judges have already begun using the new 1:1 ratio for defendants who have not yet been sentenced. So long as a defendant’s lawyer properly briefs the issue in his sentencing memorandum, this change in Department of Justice policy should help any defendant who is currently awaiting sentencing to receive a much lower sentence than they otherwise would.
But what about the 77,000 defendants who have already been sentenced in crack cocaine cases since 1992? These prisoners are currently serving long sentences who also deserve to be able to also benefit from this critical change. Accordingly, policy makers and politicians are currently struggling with the question of whether the nations crack law should be applied retroactively. NLPA along with Attorney General Holder and President Obama fully support retroactivity and believe that this law will become retroactive soon to enable defendants who have already been sentenced to receive benefit from this significant, positive change.
SO WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?
The issue of crack sentencing goes to the heart of the credibility and fairness of the federal judicial system. The Department of Justice has launched a top-to-bottom review of sentencing and corrections policy, and crack-cocaine policy is a "vitally important" part of that, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer told TIME, so much so that the Administration fast-tracked its position on cocaine parity. "The criminal-justice system must be fair, and it must be perceived as being fair," Breuer says. "The 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder is perhaps the single worst symbol of unfairness in the system. There really is no longer any basis for it." Breuer says the issue is "being looked at hard." The working group expects to make recommendations to Attorney General Eric Holder shortly so that he can issue a directive implementing retroactivity.
Reform advocates who have fought for an end to the 1980s crack sentencing laws are delighted that the stars have aligned for crack sentencing reform. At the same time, though, they say it would be a bitter disappointment if changes weren't retroactive. "It would be cruelly ironic not to make that change available to the very people whose cases led our lawmakers to make this decision," says Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which has advocated on Echols' behalf.
The 100-to-1 rule is enshrined in the get-tough Anti–Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was intended to bring down drug kingpins and choke off the flow of crack. Research since has shown that many assumptions underlying the laws were flawed, such as the belief that crack is more dangerous than powder cocaine, making its users more violent. And they have had unintended consequences: putting away low-level street dealers rather than the big-time traffickers, with startling racial disparities. (Read "Can Amphetamines Help Cure Cocaine Addiction?")
WHY WAS THE CRACK LAW UNFAIR?
About 77,000 people have been sentenced for crack-related federal crimes since 1992, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets federal sentencing guidelines. In 2008, over 80% of offenders sentenced that year were black and 10% were white. Among powder-cocaine offenders, over 52% were Hispanic, about 30% were black and about 16% were white. Crack-cocaine offenders receive longer sentences: 115 months on average in 2008, compared to 91 months for powder-cocaine offenders.
Attorney General Holder called it "simply wrong" in a speech in Memphis last month. In April, Ricardo H. Hinojosa, the Sentencing Commission's acting chair, said there is "no justification for the current statutory penalty scheme" for cocaine, a position the commission first took in 1995. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress now agree that crack sentencing rules need to be fixed; and NLPA believes this may be the year that Congress finally heeds the commission.
MORE NEWS ON BILLS BEFORE CONGRESS:
H.R. 3327 - The Ramos-Compean Justice Act of 2009
Article by: FAMM
On July 24, Representative Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) and Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 3327, the “Ramos-Compean Justice Act of 2009.” H.R. 3327 would allow courts to sentence below a mandatory minimum when, after looking at all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and considering the purposes of punishment, imposing a mandatory minimum sentence would violate congressional command in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that the sentence be no greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of punishment.
H.R. 3327 would retain mandatory minimums in the criminal code and Congress would retain the ability to set mandatory minimums. At the same time, it would empower courts to use their discretion and impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum in cases where the mandatory minimum sentence would be greater than necessary to achieve the goals of punishment.
Section 3553(a) reads:
The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4)the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for—
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines—
(I) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such guidelines by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994 (p) of title 28); and
(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742 (g), are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or
(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994 (p) of title 28);
(5) any pertinent policy statement—
(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994 (p) of title 28); and
(B) that, except as provided in section 3742 (g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.[1]
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
The bill’s title is a reference to the convictions of two Border Patrol agents, Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, convicted of shooting an unarmed, fleeing man, later identified as an undocumented immigrant and drug smuggler. George W. Bush granted clemency to the two former Border Patrol agents in January 2009 after they received 10-year mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for discharging a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence.
Thousands of bills are filed in Congress each year. All are referred to the committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction, but very few are actually scheduled for a vote. This bill was referred to the House subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. No companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. It may take several years to develop the type of support needed for this bill to pass both the House and the Senate. (A bill needs 217 votes to pass the House of Representatives and at least 50 votes to pass the Senate.)
PRISON POPULATION & THE ECONOMY
Recession is over according to Washington. However, it will obviously take some time to recoup from the disastrous economic matters that have plagued the country. Although most of the projections were in view of the stimulus offers being offered by the mortgage and automotive industry (which certainly did help many to make the decision to purchase a new home or car) - the unemployment rate is still extremely high and it will be quite some time before jobs can be recovered by many of these individuals in view of the high number of small businesses (and some larger ones) that have been forced to close their doors and layoff their employees. Fortunately, the unemployment compensation plans have been extended in view of this which will help ensure that these individuals are not also subject to being forced out of their homes or having their property repossessed for being unable to pay. While it is great that Washington has made moves to prevent a total economic crash - did the “bailout” really prove to be the resolution?
What we see in tough economic times is a certain increase in the crime rate. That coupled with the already extreme numbers in prison population, many cities and states are proposing new budgets on their local voting polls which can permit new buildings and staffing situations to accommodate this growing number of inmates in the country. The troubling with this is that it does not solve the problem.
We have already covered some huge steps being made by the government to help cut down on the prison population with respect to crack-cocaine sentences and mandatory minimums. We also are aware that crime is not the answer. However, many of the individuals sitting behind bars now have already served many years of their sentences and many more sit behind bars simply waiting to receive those sentences. So what are the states and federal government doing to help ensure that these numbers do not continue to climb?
NUMBERS
In Ohio alone, The Associated Press released an article indicating that 1 in every 25 people are in the corrections system (including probation/parole). This number has nearly doubled since 1982. Among the highest states polled - George, Idaho, Texas, Massachusetts and Ohio.
The total prison population census showed that as of June, 2008 there were more than two million (2,310,984) individuals incarcerated (in federal, state and local jails). 1,540,805 of these inmates were sentenced prisoners in the state and federal jurisdictions - meaning the other nearly one-million of them were still sitting in jail just waiting to be sentenced!
COSTS
Did you know that the cost of housing ONE inmate for a year is estimated to be nearly $21,000.00. This figure is based upon a young, healthy inmate. However, that is rarely the case. Many inmates incarcerated are suffering from a number of illnesses, are elderly and/or subject to incurring injury/illness while incarcerated - especially now due to the overcrowded prisons. It is projected that an elderly or ill inmate costs nearly $70,000.00 per year to house (three times the average)!! Obviously this can be more than most people earn in one year. Yet our tax dollars continue to pour into a fund to house these individuals when there are likely better solutions.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS?
H.R. 1592 - The Second Chance Act of 2007: As we reported earlier this year, there was approval for the Second Chance Act of 2007. However, although this made available more options for those who have served their time and are now on the streets by opening up doors for organizations to apply for grants to help those who have been released from the prison system, it did not open any doors for those individuals directly to apply for any grants. Nor did it provide for any real action for those still incarcerated which is the real issue.
H.R. 623 - The Second Chance Act for Ex-Offenders: Another bill, called The Second Chance Act For Ex-Offenders (H.R. 623) also proposed the ability for seeking expungement of one's conviction and the ability to seek employment in companies where previously they could not due to their prior conviction. However, again, this proposal does nothing for those currently incarcerated and serving far too lengthy sentences or, having served the majority of their time already. Further, this proposal has yet to even be approved.
H.R. 3072 - To Revise the System of Parole for Federal Prisoners, and for other purposes: This bill, similar to the Federal Prison Work Incentive Act of 2009 also would appear to have impact on those service sentences in the currently overcrowded prison system. However, this bill was introduced in 2005 during a previous session of Congress (which means it had to be reintroduced after that two-year session had ended since it failed to move forward).
H.R. 1475 - The Federal Prison Work Incentive Act of 2009: This Act moves to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to restore the former system of good time allowances and possible parole in the federal system. This bill was introduced in March, 2009 and has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. However, it appears that no decision has been made to permit the bill to move forward through Congress. This bill obviously could impact those currently serving time in the federal system by increasing their amount of days earned for good conduct and hopefully being eligible for parole. You can join support for this bill at the Fedcure website (www.fedcure.org).
Federal Pre-Release Residential Re-Entry Centers (RRC) - The Bureau of Prisons, after the passing of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (see above), now has available an opportunity for inmates to request a transfer to a Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) prior to the completion of their sentence. Although normally this would require that an inmate have 12 months or less to serve of their sentence, a review of their policies regarding this request confirms that an inmate may apply at any time during their prison sentence and the federal courts have held that they are treated as penal or correctional facilities within the meaning of applicable statutes. Therefore, prison staff cannot simply deny such requests automatically based upon the time at which they file the request. Complete regulations regarding this matter are located at 28 C.F.R, §570.20 thru 570.22.
H.R. 265 - Drug sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009: This bill targets cocaine kingpins and addresses sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Presently this bill (being introduced in January, 2009) is still in the first steps of the legislative process. On February 9, 2009 at the House Judiciary the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
Obviously one other “quick approach” to helping cut back on the prison population is to seek alternative solutions for those who have yet to be convicted and sentenced. Yet, it appears that, despite the understanding of this crisis, bonds continuously are rejected either for poor reasons or the failure to provide substantial enough information to give a judge proper evidence to permit the release. In the federal system for example, it may take months and in many cases YEARS before an individual proceeds to trial and is sentenced. All the while waiting for their hearings, they sit in the county jails racking up more tax dollars as opposed to being with their families and maintaining their jobs (to help contribute to taxes paid for those who have already been sentenced and are actually serving their time). Washington provides stimulus/bailout money to keep the economy moving but, with so much of our economy moving in destinations behind bars, perhaps it's time for a different "bailout" plan!
NLPA urges everyone to contact their congressmen to show their support for the pending bills and ask that they move now in finding solutions for our harsh sentencing systems and overcrowded prisons to end this madness and stop wasting your tax dollars on unnecessary housing of inmates!
USSC PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
On May 1, 2009, the USSC released its proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines manual, effective November 1, 2009. The amendments proposed by the Commission would affect sentencing for various crimes, including identity theft, distribution of controlled substances over the internet, drug trafficking, public threats, human trafficking of illegal immigrants, counterfeiting, undue influence of a minor, and child pornography. Nearly all of the proposed amendments include some sort of base offense level enhancement under the sentencing guidelines, resulting in longer sentences for many crimes. Unless disapproved by an Act of Congress, the amendments will become effective on November 1, 2009.
On September 3, 2009 the U.S. Sentencing Commission published their list of what they consider to be the priorities for the amendment cycle (which ends May 1, 2010). Included among those priorities was statutory mandatory minimum penalties, including a review of the operation of the “safety valve” provision at 18 USC §3553(e) and post-Booker federal sentencing decisions. Fore more information you can visit the U.S. Sentencing Commission website at: www.ussc.gov.
Federal Bureau of Prisons Oversight Hearing
Article by: FAMM
The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on Tuesday, July 21, to review and analyze the Federal Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) policies. In his opening, Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.), subcommittee chairman, stressed the need to re-evaluate the federal prison system which suffers from budgetary constraints, overcrowding, insufficient personnel, and unsafe facilities.
The subcommittee heard three panels addressing various problem areas for the federal prison system. The first panel was Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) who spoke of his personal investment in improving safety for correctional officers, prompted by the death of Jose Rivera, who was killed by two inmates with homemade weapons at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atwater, California. Following his death, reports by the Department of Justice described USP Atwater’s significant understaffing, overcrowding, insufficient funding and a lack of safety for inmates and correctional officers alike. Cardoza specifically spoke to the necessity for nonlethal weapons, such as pepper spray, for correctional officers. Harley G. Lappin, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), sitting on the second panel, opposed the arming of correction officers with nonlethal weapons, as doing so would have detrimental consequences.
Lappin stressed the role of prisons as “community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and provide inmates with a wide range of work and other self-improvement programs that will help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle upon their return to the community.” These criteria are not being met as the BOP suffers from staggering levels of overcrowding, citing an unprecedented 4.9-to-1 inmate-to-staff ratio. Lappin went on to lobby for increased funding, expanded housing facilities, more private prisons, and reductions in the number of inmates and time served lengths through earned good time and halfway houses.
The third panel consisted of Reginald A. Wilkinson, head of the Ohio College Access Network; Philip Fornaci, Director of the DC Prisoners’ Legal Services Project; Richard A. Lewis, senior manager at ICF International; Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender; and Phil Glover, Legislative Coordinator at the American Federation of Government Employees.
“Over-incarceration of federal prisoners takes a huge societal toll: the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted; the human cost of individual freedom lost and families broken; and the redefinition of our society as one willing to incarcerate more than is necessary to accomplish legitimate goals of sentencing,” said Sady, who criticized BOP’s inefficiency. Specifically, he noted failures to implement federal laws such as the Second Chance Act, the good time statute and the law providing for compassionate release in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Sady said that the latter has became known as the “death rattle rule” due to its poor and cumbersome implementation. Failure to implement these laws costs the American taxpayers millions.
Wilkinson spoke of the need to maintain Federal Prison Industries (FPI). He testified that FPI inmates were 24 percent less likely to recidivate than their non-FPI counterparts. Glover spoke further on violence and safety concerns in prisons, Lewis focused on faith-based initiatives, and Fornaci pushed for increased medical care for prisoners, particularly citing the failures of the grievance system.
All the legislators and witnesses agreed that drastic changes are needed to correct the deteriorating federal prison system.
NLPA CONTINUES A TREND OF EXCELLENCE -A RECAP ON OUR SUCCESSFUL CASES
DURING THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2009
Below is out an outline of the victories during the year that we felt deserved an “honorable mention”.
Lee - NLPA assisted counsel for Mr. Lee with his sentencing which was heard in the USDC, WD of VA (Case No. 1:08-cr-00024-7). His charges include crack-cocaine. The PSI recommended a guideline range of 360-LIFE. At the sentencing the court imposed 180 months - saving Mr. Lee a more than FIFTEEN YEARS TO LIFE in prison!
Wilson - NLPA assisted counsel for Mr. Wilson in the preparation of pretrial and sentencing research for his case in the USDC ND of OH (Case No. 5:2009cr00006). Mr. Wilson was charged with conspiracy and crack-cocaine. He ultimately entered a plea agreement in the case and the PSI report later prepared recommended a sentence of 151-188 months. However, at the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a sentence of 100 months - saving Mr. Wilson more than four years in prison!
Smith - NLPA assisted Mr. Smith and his counsel in the preparation of sentencing research for his case which was heard in the USDC SD of OH (Case No. 1:08-cr-00106-1). Mr. Smith was charged in an Unlawful Transport of Firearms case. The PSI in his case recommended 104 months. However, the court instead imposed a term of confinement of 60 months - saving Mr. Smith nearly four years in prison!
Moore- NLPA assisted counsel for Mr. Moore with his sentencing (USDC SC, Case No. 1:06-CR-00559-1). His PSI recommended a guideline range of 135-168 months. However, at the sentencing the judge imposed a sentence of only 46 months - saving Mr. Moore more than TEN YEARS in prison!
Thomas- NLPA assisted counsel for Mr. Thomas in the preparation of sentencing research. His case was heard in the USDC ND of OH (Case No. 5:07-cr-00563-1). His PSI recommended 240 months. However, at his sentencing the court imposed only 122 months - saving Mr. Thomas more than NINE YEARS in prison!
Wright - NLPA assisted Mr. Wright directly in providing its Preliminary Sentencing Assistance (PSA) service. His case was heard in the USDC SC, Case No. 9:07-CR-00418-1. His PSI recommended a guideline range of 151-188 months. However, at sentencing he and his attorney were able to argue for a lower sentence and the court imposed 64 months - saving Mr. Wright more than TEN YEARS in prison! By arming Mr. Wright with the information he needed to help his attorney in raising the proper defenses for him at sentencing, NLPA was able to help this individual be successful.
Polk - NLPA assited Mr. Polk directly in providing preliminary assistance. Mr. Polk was unable to afford a complete legal team but through our ability to send him preliminary information and case citations that he requested, he was successful in negotiating the best plea possible and obtaining a lower sentence in his case. His case was heard in the USDC ED AK (Case No. 4:07-cr-00092-1). His PSI recommended a guideline range of 120 months. Based upon information that we sent to Mr. Polk he was able to show his attorney why his PSI should be modified. The PSI was then revised to recommend 60 months. After receiving credit for time served and the reduction in his PSI recommendation, Mr. Polk will be released in 2.5 years.
Clark- NLPA assisted Mr. Clark and his counsel in the preparation of a §2255 post-conviction motion. His case originated in the USDC SC, Case No. 4:03-cr-01055. The court granted his motion in part and reinstated his appellate rights!
Barber - NLPA Assisted counsel for Mr. Barber in the preparation of research designed to keep his sentence at the lowest possible level. The case was heard in USDC WD of VA (Case No. 3:09-cr-00005). The PSI recommended 188 - 235 months for a sentence. However, the judge imposed a sentence of 166 months - saving Mr. Barber nearly six years in prison!
INTERESTED IN HIRING NLPA?
Do you have pressing deadlines? - Give us a due date and you can relax. Have a brief due? - Call us for a free preliminary consultation so we can determine a cost estimate. NLPA can provide anything from a research memorandum to a file-ready brief - whichever you may need. If you’re considering hiring someone to assist with your criminal proceedings, NLPA offers realistic fees that may suit you in your pursuit of finding top-notch yet affordable legal research & consulting assistance. We believe you will find our fees to be extremely competitive compared to other legal research firms in the country. We also have several alternative options for paying our fees.
NLPA can accept payment via cashier’s check or money order through the mail.
We also can accept credit/debit card payments over the telephone as well as electronic check (check by phone) payments over the telephone.
For most services provided NLPA also offers payment plans as well. With a minimum down payment you could soon be financing your legal fees.
Therefore, if you are interested in discussing the financing options available to you for your specific matter, please contact us. NLPA assists in virtually every stage of criminal proceedings from pretrial to post-conviction and also assists in immigration matters. For additional information on the services offered by National Legal Professional Associates please contact our offices.
DON’T FORGET!
NLPA also can now assist you in finding financing for your legal defense needs. We are pleased to spotlight Lenders Financial Group (LFG) once again as a way in which EVERYONE can afford the legal team they deserve! LFG can assist in a number of different loan programs. LFG also assists in areas other than legal defense. You can learn more by visiting their website at: www.lendersfinancialgroup.com.
This newsletter is designed to Introduce you to NLPA. As NLPA is not a law firm, professional services are only provided to licensed counsel in all areas that involve the practice of law. NLPA has created this publication to provide you with authoritative and accurate information concerning the subject matter covered. However, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. This publication is not meant to be a substitute for legal or other professional advice, which NLPA is not rendering herein.
Copyright © 2009 National Legal Professional Associates
About NLPA
NLPA is a research and consulting firm, owned and staffed by attorneys, and dedicated to the professional mission of providing counsel, research, and related work product to members of the Bar. Our ownership structure includes attorneys licensed to practice before many local, state, and federal courts; however, NLPA is not a law firm and provides no “front line” legal services. On the other hand, we are much more than your typical paralegal service as our work is prepared by attorneys. Our sole purpose is to provide research and consulting assistance by lawyers, for lawyers . . . and their clients. With cutting-edge computer research capabilities, an experienced and top quality staff, and more than sixteen years’ experience, NLPA is well-positioned to provide the types of assistance members of the Bar need. You are important to us and we hope we can commence and maintain a long-term relationship with you. Please know that we are here to assist in all your needs. If you would like to know more about the services we offer, please contact us at:
National Legal Professional Associates
11331 Grooms Road, Suite 1000
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Tel.: (513) 247-0082 * Fax: (513) 247-9580
E-Mail: contactus@nlpa.com * Website: www.NLPA.com
NLPA: WE LISTEN, WE CARE, WE GET RESULTS !
National Legal Professional Associates
11331 Grooms Road, Suite 1000
Cincinnati, OH 45242
|
