I need a contingency-basis civil attorney experienced in 42 USC 1983 (civil rights) litigation. The action is me, an inmate, versus the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) members and employees in both their individual and official capacities. By way of introduction, I'm a very likable Irishman, an intelligent, fun guy. My fiancee has loyally stood by me during the past six years of my imprisonment. I've been employed as a heavy highway worker through the union. I was released on parole, but because of a substance abuse problem, I violated my parole. I was arrested several times for DUI. After a full Board hearing I was ordered to serve 12 months backtime for the technical violation and 12 months for the new conviction. The two penalties were made concurrent; 12 months, altogether. My new minimum was set for March 2001, however, I've now been imprisoned for six years! Judge for yourself, does the punishment fit the crime? How can it be justified to imprison a man for 6 years where he was given only 12 months, especially a man with a well paying job and strong family ties? I've been denied reparole 5 times, yet I have an approved home plan, a job plan and a good record. Clearly, the Parole Board must have its own unreasonable priorities. Due to various Constitutional violations in the Board's decision making procedures, I remain unlawfully incarcerated. For reasons understood only by the Board, my civil rights are violated with impunity. My civil rights claims arose after I filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on an ex post facto violation and other claims [see: Minkens-Thomas (I), 321 F3d 374 (3rd cir 2003) and Minkens-Thomas (II), 355 F3d 294 (3rd cir 2004)]. The docket can be reviewed at www.ca3.uscourts.gov Number 04-3024. The district court (Judge Munley) ruled in my favor on the ex post facto claim based on documentary evidence and admissions by the Attorney General's brief. He ruled as follows: "1. The civil rights claims are dismissed without prejudice to Meehan to pursue a claim in appropriately filed civil rights action." The Parole Board has knowingly used unconstitutional and impermissible criteria outside the province of 61 PS 331.19 in its decision making process to deny my parole. For more information an attorney may review the online case file or write directly to me at the address above. I'll forward a brief overview of my claims. This is a very winab1e case which would survive any motion for summary judgment. Rebecca's Bargain Antiques Collectible Vintage Photes Fine Prints - Old Maps Sheet Music - Old Books Elegant Antiques and Collectibles "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson, 1809 You are welcome to use or republish any of our material. Please give www.prisoners.com credit as the source. Return to the Parole Illusion Menu Return to the Legal Help Wanted Menu Return to the Main Menu Go to our site's Search Engine Send us Your Comments or Input.