Copyright 1996 - 2008 3/7/08

SITEMAP

BACK TO CELTIC CIRCLE SCHOLAR

Copyright 1996 - 2008

3/7/08

David Morris, Ph.D.
xxxxxx
Connecticut
emaildavidmorris@gmail.com

April 6, 2007

Michelle Bazetta
xxxxxx
xxxxxx

Dear Michelle Bazetta:

I am a retired professor of marketing and a fellow poet. I just read your page on the web. I was impressed with your use of words and thoughts. If you want to send me some of your poems, I will read them and if you like also put them on my poetry website. So far, it is my grandmother and myself. www.irishcelticpoetry.com I would like to ask more than what is on the letter but I have no idea how this works. Answer whatever you wish. I am not a lawyer.

From what I read, your ex- husband killed his stepmother. You were not involved in any way but when asked by him you assisted and did not report this crime to the authorities. When the crime was discovered five years later, you and your husband were both arrested and charged together with the murder. Your trial was together for the same crime. At the trail for some reason, the fact that you were afraid and battered was not considered an important issue in your decision to remain silent about the crime. You were greatly over punished in my view.

I believe that your husband was deemed insane at the time and sentenced to life without parole. For some reason you were sentenced to second-degree murder with life in prison with no mention of parole. It was latter identified that your judge had misinterpreted the sentence and believed that this was not an actual life sentence and with good works you could receive parole. Somehow, it was found, that the parole board had a literal interpretation of what a second-degree life sentence meant.
Your lawyer argued to a judge, supported by the sentencing judge that he had a different understanding of the definition of the term life in second-degree murder. The court did not agree that this was unfair to you. It was decided that you should spend more time in prison to bring you in line with other second-degree murder convictions. This would then represent more time served, up to twenty years. However, this opened the opportunity for parole to you at that time.

A few questions.

Did your husband benefit economically from the death of his mother-in-law?
Do you have information on your case transcripts on the internet? I have seen the two court opinions but not the arguments or transcripts. Also nothing on your original trail.
Did you husband ever say he wanted to kill his mother-in-law to anyone?
According to your sentencing judge, many people wanted you to receive a break, but many also wanted you punished. Why would they want you punished? Were these pro and con ever stated by your judge under oath or in a public forum? Is there a written record of this broad range of public opinion in the press? Are these outside positions of people part of your court records in your State?
Why do you think your judge would come out and say he had made a mistake? This seems strange. Was your judge elected? Did you have a jury trial? Did you have a lawyer? Why do you think you were accused of this crime? Was this normal in your State at that time?
Why do you think your trail was with your husband and not separate? Do you think they thought it would be an easy case to win?
Did the media support you or were they against you?
Did your lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court have any overlap at anytime with any decision about your suggestion that the term second-degree murder and life had different interoperations?
Who gave you the idea and support for both of these challenges? Why do you think they did this?
Were you ever identified as a troublemaker for going outside the prison system and saying some things that could be considered negative about the parole board?
Were you actually found with drugs? Did this overlap in any way with the Supreme Court Case?

On the positive side.

You will be remembered for a 1000 years because of your Supreme Court Case.
You have taken the time to receive a higher education.
You have continued with your Masters Degree and are paying yourself. How does that work?
You are a very good poet.
You have a great deal of profound life experience.
Your bravery is obvious.
You are probably a genius.
You can easily help others from your experiences.

I will add nine US stamps for you to use however, you wish.
You do not have to respond to this letter in detail unless you wish. I would like you to send me a note that you received this letter.
Please do not share my name with others. I am just contacting you and you alone.
Can you receive telephone calls? How? Is it easy? Let me know and I will call you.
Do you have e-mail? Can you get access to the web? Can you receive books? Can you have a tape recorder? Do they supply you with paper and pens?

Other Questions

When are you paroled?
How are you or anyone supposed to make the transition from prison?
Do you have family that will help you?
Do you require a job to be released?
Does the State give you any money to get started over again in life?
Do you have to stay in your State or can you visit or move to another State?
If you wish to move do you require some reason or can you just say I want to move?
If so, how long can you stay out of your state? How long does parole last for you?
Do you have to go to a half way house? What happens if you run out of money? Will the State help you? What happens of you get sick?
I would be interested in co-authoring a book with you starting now. I would also like to get to know you as a person.

All the best,
David Morris

No. 02-94
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WILLIAM OVERTON, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections,
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Petitioners
v.
MICHELLE BAZETTA, et al.,
Respondents
On Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals
For the Sixth Circuit
BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY; CHILD
WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA; JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW SECTION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION; CENTER
FOR CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS; MICHIGAN CHAPTER OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS; CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES; CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY; ARKANSAS VOICES FOR THE CHILDREN LEFT
BEHIND; FAMILY AND CORRECTIONS NETWORK; CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX
TRIBE; MICHIGAN COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY; MICHIGAN
FEDERATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; CHILDREN AND FAMILY
JUSTICE CENTER; MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICE;
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR WOMEN IN PRISON; LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN; UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK; CHICAGO LEGAL ADVOCACY TO INCARCERATED
MOTHERS; MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR CHILDREN WITH EMOTIONAL
DISORDERS; PRISON REFORM ADVOCACY CENTER; PORTIA
PROJECT/PROJECT LINK-UP; PRISON ACTIVIST RESOURCE CENTER; YOUTH
LAW CENTER; ROSEMARY SARRI, Ph.D.; AARON MCNEECE Ph.D.; HAROLD S.
GAZAN, M.S.W.; JAMES E. ROLLIN, Ph.D.; PATRICIA RIDEOUT; ROSARIO
CEBALO, Ph.D.; TOM CROXTON, M.S.W.; BARBARA BADEAR ALDAVE AND
MICHIGAN STATE SENATORS ELIZABETH BRATER; GILDA JACOBS; AND
MARTHA G. SCOTT AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS AND
SEEKING AFFIRMANCE
Jill M. Wheaton
Counsel of Record
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, Michigan 48243-1668
(313) 568-6551
Attorney for Amici Curiae
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................iii
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE..............................................................1
ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................6
I. CHILDREN ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HARMED WHEN THEY
CANNOT VISIT THEIR PARENTS OR OTHER CLOSE
RELATIVES IN PRISON.............................................................................6
A. The Number Of Children Who May Be Affected......................................6
B. The MDOC Regulations Restrict Children From Visiting Incarcerated
Parents And Other Close Relatives...........................................................8
1. Minor nieces and nephews of prisoners may not visit. .......................8
2. Children for whom parental rights have been terminated
may not visit their parents................................................................9
3. Prohibition of visits by former prisoners who are not
immediate family members can exclude the only adult
available to accompany a visiting child........................................... 10
4. The requirement that visiting children be accompanied by
an adult immediate family member or legal guardian denies
visitation to children. ..................................................................... 11
5. Permanent bans on visitation completely exclude children
from visits..................................................................................... 12
C. Failure To Visit Imprisoned Parents Or Other Close Family Members
Causes Significant Emotional, Psychological And Developmental
Harm To Children. ................................................................................ 13
D. State And Federal Policies And Practices Encourage And Facilitate
Visitation Between Parents And Children, And Presume That Such
Visitation Is Beneficial. ......................................................................... 17
ii
II. THE PLAINTIFFS, INCLUDING THE CHILDREN, HAVE A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY, INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO NON-CONTACT VISITATION....................................... 19
A. Familial Relationships Are Protected By The First And Fourteenth
Amendments......................................................................................... 19
III. THE MDOC REGULATIONS ARE NOT REASONABLY RELATED
TO A LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL INTEREST..................................... 21
A. There Is No Valid Connection Between The Regulations Restricting
Visitation By Children And A Legitimate Penological Interest................ 22
B. There Are No Adequate Alternative Means Available To Exercise
The Right To Familial Association Other Than Visitation. ...................... 24
CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 26