Viviano's shoes are ready for delivery everywhere in Morocco or geographical situation of your country. They will be delivered to the delivery address which the intact will inform about the order form.
All the commands (orders) will be handled (treated) less than 24 hours (except Saturday and Sunday).
The delivery deadlines will be from 1 to 3 working days for Morocco and 3 in 10 days for the other countries, apply from the reception of the e-mail of confirmation of payment sent by Viviano.ma.
Amana: La delivery will be with a supplement of 49 Dhs only, and free for an amount more than 500 Dhs.
Chronopost international: the prices (prizes) of delivery are variable according to the geographical situation of your country as well as to the weight of your command (order).
Viviano.ma cannot be held responsible for delays of routing of the parcel.
If for a reason or an other one, you are not satisfied, you have 7 days as from the reception of the parcel to send back pairs of shoes. You can ask for the exchange or for the refund without penalties with the exception of the expenses of return.
Any article having been used can be neither sent back, nor exchanged. Articles must be sent back in mint condition, in their original packing's and accompanied by their labels and documentation.
Credit card payment: the system of reassurance of the electronic payments set up by Fpay is certified by theCenter Interbank electronic banking (CMI) and by the Moroccan Banks as well as by the bodies internationaux VISA and MasterCard.
Payment by check/Or By Bank transfer: N of bank account will be communicated to you during confirmation of your order form.
Customer accounts and data are protected by a password. The Internet users are the only responsible ones for the conservation of the confidentiality of their word of pass and/or for any information in touch with their profile. In case of oversight of their password, they have to contact Viviano my by e-mail or by telephone.
The present conditions of use are subjected to the Moroccan law. In case of various relatives in the interpretation, the execution or the non-fulfillment of the present conditions of use, the Moroccan courts Casablanca is will be only competent.
· Click ' to Place order '.
By clicking the name of the product, you arrive on a descriptive index card. You will find a photo, a description, a data sheet, a list of the compatible accessories, the contents of the packaging, there etc.
Of a click on the link or on the button tocommand, the article of your choice is slid in your basket. The latter contains the products which you intend to buy. It is at any time possible to reach your basket (by clicking the button representing a basket) and to modify the contents by adding or by deleting an article.
Show your basket and click on validate your order. Unless you are already recorded on the site, seize your name, your e-mail addresses, with invoicing and with delivery. Opt then for a mode of delivery (post, relay parcel Kiala ...) and verify the cost.
Opt then for a mode of delivery (post (relay parcel Kiala) and verify the cost there. Then select the method of payment. If you pay by check, wait to receive the e-mail of confirmation of the seller and send your check to the address indicated by the site. If you want to settle by bank card, indicate the one which you have and validate. You are redirected in a reassured space in which you will have to seize the information of your card.
The number in sixteen figures, the date of validity and three last ones amount of the control number, or CVV2 (they appear in the back of the card , on the band ( on which you signed).
If you dread the hacking of your card, you can pay by banking e-carte. Your bank digs you then, on request, the references of a virtual card (valid only a few hours) which you seize instead of those of your own card.
The secure solutions of the type PayPal are also an alternative in the CB. You beforehand have to open then credit an account PayPal. To pay your purchases, you do not have more than to send to the seller (who also has to have an account PayPal) an e-mail authorizing this one to make transfer the amount of the command towards his own bank.
With a regulation by bank card, the validation of the command is generally almost immediate. He can however arrive that at the request of his insurer. The trader demands documentary evidences of your identity, susceptible to delay the delivery. In the minutes which follow the validation, an e-mail of confirmation recapitulating the command is sent to you.
If the product which you bought is not in stock, the retail website commands it at its tonsorial animal. Otherwise, he prepares immediately your parcel for the expedition in the warehouse where are stored all the products.
Most of the expeditions are realized by AMANA. Certain sites communicate you then a number of follow-up and a link towards a column of the site AMANA allowing you to know where is your parcel.
It is better to be at home during the delivery. Otherwise, with the Post office, you will have to go the next day to the office on which you depend to get back your command and with a carrier, you will be obliged to arrange an appointment. Think, before signing the delivery slip, of verifying that the article is not damaged so as to arrange you the possibility of obtaining a refund.


text:
You are here: Home>Places>Townlands>Civil Parishes>Civil Parish of Addergoole>Kinnakinelly
Kinnakinelly
Sandra Noone
Kinnakinelly Satellite View
Cionn Mhic Cionnaola, Connelly's hill or Kinealy's hill
Kinnakinelly is situated in the civil parish of Addergoole, barony of Dunmore, County Galway. It is located in the west extremity of the parish bounded on the north south and west by the parishes of Kelvin (barony of Clonmorris) and Dunmore and on the east by Cloonbrusk and the parish of Dunmore.
The Down Survey Map under the name 'Cunjolta and Shanvallymore' shows that the land was owned by Lord Birmingham, a protestant in 1641 (pre Cromwell). The land was owned by Martin Kirrowan, a catholic in 1670 (post Cromwell).
O'Donovan's Field Name Books 1838 provide various spellings of this townland: Kinnakinelly, Cion na gCoineile, Cion Cineile, Kinakinnellia, and Kinnakinnelly. According to this source, Kinnakinelly was the property of Admiral Oliver (Dublin). He owned the 693 acres statue measure including 185 acres of bog.
Census 1841-1851
Kinnakinelly consisted of an area of 693 acres, 0 roods, 2 perches. In 1841 there were a total of 358 people, 171 were male and 187 were female who occupied a total of 60 houses and there were 2 uninhabited houses. In 1851 the total of people decreased to 268 people, 132 were male and 136 were female who occupied a total of 45 houses. The poor law valuation paid in 1851 was £189-15-0.
Griffith's Valuation
According to Griffiths 1855, Dudley Oliver and Francis Fitzgerald were the main land owners. Edward Bowens, Roger Ronan, Michael Connell and Luke McManus were smaller landowners. Dudley Oliver leased tenements to several people. Thomas Mularky paid an annual rent of £32-5-0 for 78 acres, 1 rood, 15 perches of house, offices and land. Bridget Mularky paid £7-10-0 for 12 acres, 1 rood, 35 perches for house, offices and land. James Mularky paid £6-15-0 for 13 acres of house, offices and land. Edward Bowens paid £12-10-0 for 24 acres, 1 rood, 31 perches of house, offices and land. Michael Harte paid £ 4-15-0 for 7 acres, 2 roods, 15 perches of house, offices and land. Patrick Glynn paid £6-5-0 for 20 acres, 2 roods, 22 perches of land. James and Luke McManus paid £4-5-0 for 9 acres, 3 roods, 27 perches of house, offices and land. James McManus paid £4-15-0 for 14 acres, 3 roods, 12 perches of land. Patrick Kirrane paid £7 for 21 acres, 0 roods, 28 perches of house, offices and land. Patrick Byrne and Patrick Bowens paid £5-14-0 for 17 acres, 1 rood, 39 perches of house, offices and land. John Rattigan paid £5-15-0 for 16 acres, 2 roods, 2 perches of house, offices and land. Dudley Oliver retained an area of bog which consisted of 56 acres, 0 roods, 18 perches which he paid £0-10-0 for.
Francis Fitzgerald leased tenements to a number of people. Roger Ronan paid an annual rent of £18-15-0 for 52 acres, 2 roods, 7 perches of house, offices and land. Thomas Ronan paid £15-5-0 for 48 acres, 2 roods, 16 perches of house, offices and land. Thomas Colclough paid £6-5-0 For 10 acres, 0 roods, 39 perches of house, offices and land. James McGrath paid £6 for 11 acres, 0 roods, 20 perches of house, offices and land. John Jennings paid £6-15-0 for 11 acres, 3 roods, 0 perches of house, offices and land. Thomas Colclough, James McGrath and John Jennings paid £6-6-0 for 20 acres, 0 roods, 10 perches of land. Luke Kirrane, Patrick Walsh, Michael Walsh, Michael Ronan and William Colling paid £30-16-0 for 49 acres, 2 roods, 31 perches of house offices and land. John Kelly paid £4-15-0 for 12 acres, 1 rood, 22 perches of house, offices and land. Patrick Kelly paid £4-15-0 for 10 acres, 2 roods, 31 perches of house, offices and land. John Gibbons paid £4-15-0 for 9 acres, 2 roods, 17 perches of house, offices and land. Michael and Thomas Gibbons paid £6-16-0 for 13 acres, 0 roods, 15 perches of house, offices and land. Thomas Colling and John Nestor paid £11 for 24 acres, 1 rood, 20 perches of house, offices and land. Michael Colling paid £3-10-0 for 7 acres, 8 roods, 5 perches of house, offices and land. Bridget Kelly Junior paid £3-5-0 for 6 acres, 2 roods, 25 perches of house, garden, offices and land. Patrick Kelly Senior paid £3-10-0 for 6 acres, 2 roods, 10 perches of house, offices and land. William Colling paid £3-5-0 for 6 acres, 2 roods, 25 perches of house, offices and land. Thomas Kelly paid £3-5-0 for 4 acres, 3 roods, 10 perches of house and land. Michael Connell paid £5 for 7 acres, 3 roods, 30 perches of house, offices and land. Luke McManus paid £12-10-0 for 23 acres of office and land. Michael and William Colling paid £5-4-0 for 9 acres, 2 roods, 26 perches of land. Bridget Havorin paid £0-12-0 for 7 acres, 3 roods, 25 perches of land. Francis Fitzgerald retained an area of bog (of no value) which consisted of 15 acres. Edward Bowens leased a house, offices and land Luke McManus. Luke paid £5 for 7 acres, 2 roods, 4 perches. Roger Ronan leased tenement to Patrick Hunt. Patrick Hunt paid £0-18-0 for 1 acre of house and land. Michael Connell leased tenement to James Dolan. James Dolan paid £1-15-0 for 2 acres, 1 rood, 30 perches of house and land. Luke McManus leased tenement to Martin Glynn. Martin Glynn paid £0-8-0 for 32 perches of house and garden. The total valuation rate paid in Kinnakinelly was £264-8-0.
Old Age Pension census search forms 1851
Roger Kirrane – Application Number C17 404
Roger Kirrane applied for the pension on the 12th of January 1917. At the time of the application his address was Kilmacnella, Irishtown, County Mayo. According to Roger his parents were Luke and Sally Kirrane (nee Wlash). Roger Kirrane was awarded an annual pension of £16-14.
John (Pat) Glynn – Application Number C17 4921
John Glynn applied for the pension on the 30th of June 1917. At the time of the application his address was Kilmacnella, Irishtown, Claremorris County Mayo. According to John his parents were Pat and Ellen Glynn. John Glynn was awarded an annual pension of £16-14.
John Kelly – Application Number C17 8980
John Kelly applied for the pension on the 27th of November 1917. At the time of the application his address was Kilmacnella, Irishtown, Claremorris, County Mayo. According to John, his parents were John and Bridget Kelly (nee Cullina). John Kelly was awarded an annual pension of £16-14.
Mary Mullarkey – Application Number C17 8985
Mary Mullarkey applied for the pension on the 27th of November 1917. At the time of the application the address she supplied was C/O Mr Lawrence McHugh, Kilmacknella, Irishtown, Claremorris, County Mayo. According to Mary her parents were James and Mary Mullarkey (nee Connelly). Mary was awarded an annual pension of £16-14.
Bridget Glynn – Application Number C21 2502
Bridget Glynn applied for the pension on the 29th of March 1921. At the time of the application the address she supplied was Mrs Bridget Kirrane, Knockadoon, Irishtown, County Mayo. According to Bridget her parents were Pat and Ellen Glynn who were married in 1834. Bridget Glynn was awarded an annual pension of £16-14.
Mary King – Application Number C21 5320
Mary King applied for the pension on the 23rd of August 1921. At the time of the application the address she supplied was Mrs Mary Donnellan, Cloonagh, Dunmore, County Galway. According to Mary her parents were Hugh and Margaret King (nee Kelly) who married in 1844. Mary King was awarded an annual pension of £16-14.
There were a total of 26 houses in Kinnakinelly in 1901. There were 161 residents in total, 79 were male and 82 were female. All occupants were Roman Catholics. Most of the residents were born in County Galway except for 6 people. Sarah Bowers, Georgina, Jane and Aylmer Ellis who were all born in County Mayo. George Ellis was born in England. Alliver Ellis was born in Dublin City. The heads of the households were: John Conway, Michael Bownes, Bridget McManus, John Mullerkey, Margaret McHugh, Margaret Mullarkey, Michael Harte, James Rattigan, Patrick Brien, John Bowers, Frances Kirrane, Michael McManus, John Glynn, Thomas Kelly, George Ellis, Rodger Kirrane, John Walsh, Michael Kelly, Pat Cullina, John Kelly, John Mullin, Luke Ronayne, Bridget Nestor, John Connell, John Kelly and John Glynn. The census forms that were collected on the 17th of April showed that all 26 houses were listed as private dwellings. All the house walls were made of permanent material and the house roof was made of perishable materials except for the house George Ellis lived in; his house walls and roof were made of permanent materials. Overall there were a total of 91 farm buildings.
John Conway (35) was married to Mary (30). John worked as a farmer. Mary documented her occupation as a farmer's wife. John and his wife Mary could not read. They lived with their son John (1) and Mary King (74) who was Mary's mother. Mary King was a widow who did not list her occupation, she could not read. The 3 eldest members of the family could speak Irish and English. The Conway family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. John Conway owned the land his house was situated along with 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Michael Bownes (40) was married to Bridget (42). Michael worked as a farmer. Bridget recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife. Michael and Bridget lived their 5 children, Pat (12), John (10), James (8), Michael (3) and Sarah (5) and Michael's mother Sarah (68) was a widow who did not record her occupation. Pat, John, James, Michael and Sarah were listed as scholars. The 5 eldest members of the family could read and write. James could read only. The 2 youngest children could not read. Michael, Bridget and Sarah could speak Irish and English. There was no language documented for the 5 children. The Bownes family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Michael Bownes owned the land his house was situated along with 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 fowl house.
Bridget McManus (70) was a widow. She recorded her occupation as a farmer, she could not read. Bridget lived with her son John (52), his wife Mary (46) and their 11 children: Katie (20), James (19), Norah (18), Pat (17), Mary (16), Luke (14), Maggie (13), Bridget (10), Annie (6), Martin (3) and John (2). John documented his occupation as a farmer's son. Mary recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife. Katie, Norah and Mary recorded their occupation as a farmer's daughter. James, Pat and Luke documented their occupation as a farmer's son. Maggie, Bridget, Annie, Martin and John were listed as scholars. The 10 eldest members of the family could read and write. Naturally at this early stage Annie, Martin and John could not read. The 11 eldest members of the family could speak Irish and English. There was no language documented for the 3 youngest members of the family. The McManus family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Bridget McManus owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
John Mullarkey (51) was married to Julia (40). John recorded his occupation as a farmer. Julia documented her occupation as a farmer's wife. John and Julia lived with 5 children, Willia [sic] (14), John (12), Michael (10), Mary A (8) and James F (6). Willia documented his occupation as a farmer's son. John, Michael, Mary A and James F were listed as scholars. John and Julia could speak Irish and English while their 5 children only spoke English. The whole household could read and write. The Mullarkey family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Mullarkey owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Margaret McHugh (70) was a widow. Margaret documented her occupation as a farmer. She lived with her son Laurence (30) and her sister Catherine (50). Laurence recorded his occupation as a farmer's son. Catherine did not record her occupation. The whole household could read and write. They all spoke Irish and English. The occupants lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Margaret McHugh owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Margaret Mullarkey (45) was a widow. Margaret recorded her occupation as a farmer. Margaret lived with her 8 children: Tom (26), Delia (24), Willie (22), Maggie (18), Annie (17), Agnes (14), Celia (12) and Sarah (9). Tom and Willie documented their occupation as a farmer's son. Delia, Maggie and Annie recorded their occupation as a farmer's daughter. Agnes, Celia and Sarah were all listed as scholars. The whole household could read and write. The 4 eldest members of the family could speak Irish and English. The Mullarkey family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Margaret Mullarkey owned the land her was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Michael Harte (63) was married to Bridget (50). Michael recorded his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Bridget could not read. Michael and Bridget lived with 4 children, Michael (30), Thomas (25), Henry (18) and Anne (15). Bridget and the children worked as labourers. Michael, Henry and Anne could all read and write. Thomas could not read. The whole household could speak Irish and English. The Harte family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Michael Harte owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
James Rattigan (70) was married to Margaret (58). James documented his occupation as a farmer, he could not read or write. Margaret recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife, she could read and write. James and Margaret lived with their 5 children: John (24), Bridget (21), Margaret (20), James (19) and Norah (16). John and James documented their occupation as a farmer's son. Bridget, Margaret and Norah and listed their occupation as a farmer's daughter. All 5 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Rattigan family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. James Rattigan owned the land his house was situated along with 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Patrick Brien (60) was married to Honor (60). Patrick recorded his occupation as a farmer and Honor documented her occupation as a farmer's wife. Patrick and Honor could not read. They could speak Irish and English. Patrick and Honor lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Patrick Brien owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house and 1 barn.
John Bowers (35) was married to Sarah (30). John documented his occupation as a farmer. Sarah recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife. John and Sarah lived with John's unmarried brother Patrick (31). Patrick listed his occupation as a farmer. The whole household spoke Irish and English. They could read and write. The Bowers family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. John Bowers owned the land his house was situated along with 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Frances Kirrane (82) was a widow. Frances documented her occupation as a farmer, she could not read. Frances lived with her daughter Bridget (35), her son Michael (40), her daughter-in-law Catherine (30) and her 4 granddaughters: Mary Anne (4), Kate (3) Winifred (1) and Bridget (6 months). Bridget (35) did not document her occupation, she could not read. Michael documented his occupation as a farmer. Catherine recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife. Michael and Catherine could read and write. Mary Anne was listed as a farmer's daughter. Naturally at this early age the 4 young children could not read. The 5 eldest members of the family could speak Irish and English. The Kirrane family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Frances Kirrane owned the land her was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house and 1 barn.
Michael McManus (40) lived with his sister Nora (36) and his brother Pat (34). Michael documented his occupation as a farmer. Nora did not record her occupation. Pat listed his occupation as a labourer. All 3 members of the family were unmarried. They could read and write. They also spoke Irish and English. The McManus family lived in a 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Michael McManus owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
John Glynn (50) was married to Winifred (48). John recorded his occupation as a farmer and Winifred documented her occupation as a farmer's wife. John and Winifred lived with their 9 children: Thomas (22), John (19), Ellen (17), Kate (15), Winifred (13), Delia (11), Michael (9), James (7), and Sarah (3). Thomas and John documented their occupation as a farmer's son. Ellen and Kate recorded their occupation as a farmer's daughter. Winifred, Delia, Michael and James were listed as scholars. John and Winifred could not read but their 8 eldest children could read and write. Naturally at this early age Sarah could not read. The 8 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Glynn family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Glynn owned the land his house was situated along 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Thomas Kelly (35) was married to Bridget (35). Thomas and Bridget lived with their 2 daughters Catherine (5) and Bridget (2). Thomas documented his occupation as a farmer. Bridget recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife. Catherine and Bridget were listed as farmer's daughters. John and Bridget could not read but they could speak Irish and English. The 2 young children could not read. The Kelly family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Thomas Kelly owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
George Ellis (64) was married to Georgina (55). George documented his occupation as a retired Captain of the 52nd Light Infantry. There was no occupation recorded for Georgina. George and Georgina lived with their 3 unmarried children. Alliver F (31) and Aylmer C (28) recorded their occupations as land and dividends. Jane A (24) listed her occupation as dividends[1]. Jane Diskin (35) worked as a domestic servant was recorded on the census form. The 6 occupants of the house could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The occupants lived in 1st class house with 10 front windows and the house had 9 rooms. George Ellis owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house and 1 barn.
Rodger Kirrane (55) was married to Bridget (58). Rodger recorded his occupation as a farmer. Bridget documented her occupation as a farmer's wife. John and Bridget lived with their 6 children, Luke (17), Thomas (14), Patrick (13), Mary (7), Rodger (5) and John (1). Luke documented his occupation as a farmer's son. Thomas, Patrick and Mary were all listed as scholars. Rodger and Bridget could not read, their 4 eldest children could read and write. Naturally at this early age Rodger and John could not read. The 5 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Kirrane family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Rodger Kirrane owned the land his house was situated along with 3 farm buildings.
John Walsh (55) was married to Honor (41). John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read only. Honor record her occupation as a farmer's wife, she could read and write. John and Honor lived with their 8 children, Martin (16), Michael (14) Mary (12), John (10), Edward (7), Kate (5), Norah (3) and Thomas (1). Martin documented his occupation as a general labourer. Michael, Mary, John and Edward were all listed as scholars. The 4 eldest children could read and write. Edward could read only. Naturally at this early age Kate, Norah and Thomas could not read. The 6 eldest members of the family could speak Irish and English. There was no language documented for the 4 youngest members. The Walsh family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. John Walsh owned the land his house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
Michael Kelly (32) was married to Margaret (30). Michael documented his occupation as a shepherd. Margaret did not record her occupation. Michael and Margaret lived with their 2 children John (5) and Mary Ellen (1). Michael and Margaret could read and write, they both spoke Irish and English. Naturally at this early John and Mary Ellen could not read. The Kelly family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Michael Kelly owned the land his house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
Pat Cullina (58) was married to Catherine (50). Pat documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Catherine recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife, she could not read. Pat and Catherine lived with their 5 children, Michael (23), Mary (21), Bridget (19), Julia (16) and William (14). Michael documented his occupation as a general labourer. Mary, Bridget, Julia and William were all listed as scholars. The 5 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Cullina family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Patrick Cullina owned the land his house was situated along with 2 farm buildings.
John Kelly (45) was married to Winifred (40). John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could not read. Winifred recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife, she could read and write. John and Winifred lived with 7 children: Mary (20), Patrick (18), William (16), James (14), Celia (12), Thomas (10) and Delia (9). Mary who was unmarried recorded her occupation as a farmer's daughter. Patrick and William documented their occupation as a farmer's son. James, Celia, Thomas and Delia were all listed as scholars. All 7 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Kelly family lived in a 2nd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. John Kelly owned the land his house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
John Mullin (26) was married to Anne (32). John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Anne recorded her occupation as a farmer, she could read only. John and Anne lived with their son Michael (1) and Johns 3 siblings, Martin (14), Mary (12) and Kate (10). Martin, Mary and Kate were all listed as scholars. John 3 siblings could read and write. John and Anne spoke Irish and English, Michael, Martin, Mary and Kate spoke English. The Mullin family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Mullen owned the land his house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
Luke Ronayne (60) was married to Kate (60). Luke recorded his occupation as a farmer. Kate documented her occupation as a farmer's wife. Luke and Kate lived with their son Michael (33), daughter-in-law Catherine (21), daughter Kate (20) and Patrick Mullen (16). Michael recorded his occupation as a farmer's son. Catherine and Kate documented their occupation as a farmer's daughter. Patrick Mullen recorded his occupation as a general domestic servant. The whole household could read and write. They also spoke Irish and English. The occupants lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Luke Ronyane owned he land his house was situated along with 1 farm building.
Bridget Nestor (60) was a widow. Bridget documented her occupation as a farmer. Bridget lived with her 2 children Thomas (24) and Julia (19). Thomas documented his occupation as a farmer's son. Julia recorded her occupation as a farmer's daughter. The whole household could read and write. They also spoke Irish and English. The Nestor family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Bridget Nestor owned the land her house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
John Connell (55) was married to Cathrine [sic] (48). John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Cathrine recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife, she could read only. John and Cathrine lived with John's mother Mary (76) and their 5 children Thomas (23), Michael (19), Kate (10), Margaret (8) and Delia (5). Mary was a widow she did not document her occupation. Mary could read only. Thomas and Michael recorded their occupation as general labourers. Kate, Margaret and Delia were all listed as scholars. The 4 eldest children could all read and write. The 5 eldest members of the family could speak Irish and English. The Connell family lived in a 3rd class with 2 font windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Connell owned the land his house was situated along with 3 farm buildings.
John Kelly (75) was a widower. John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could not read. He spoke Irish and English. John lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Kelly owned the land his house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
John Glynn (55) was married to Honor (45). John documented his occupation as a farmer. Honor recorded her occupation as a farmer's wife. John and Honor lived with their 2 unmarried children John (23) and Julia (17). John and Honor could not read but their 2 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Glynn family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. John Glynn owned the land his house was situated along with 4 farm buildings.
There were a total of 24 houses in Kinnakinelly in 1911. There were 128 residents in total, 62 were male and 66 were female. All occupants were Roman Catholics. Most of the residents were born in County Galway except for: George and Mary Conway, Bridget Harte, James Rattigan, Winifred Glynn, Bridget Nestor, Bridget Kirrane, Catherine Cullina, Annie Mullin, Catherine Ronayne, Winifred Kelly, Oliver, Aylmer and Jane Ellis, Honor and Margaret Glynn who were all born in County Mayo. Isabella O'Connor was born in County Wicklow. The heads of the households were: George Conway, Julia Mullarkey, Lawrence McHugh, Margaret Mullarkey, Michael Bones, Michael McManus, Bridget Harte, James Rattigan, Mary Connally, John Bones, Michael Kirrane, John McManus, John Glynn, Bridget Kelly, Mary Connell, Bridget Nestor, Roger Kirrane, John Walsh, Patrick Cullina, John Mullin, Catherine Ronayne, John Kelly, Oliver Ellis and Honor Glynn. The census forms that were collected on the 6th of April showed the houses were listed as private dwellings. Most of the house walls were made of permanent materials and the roofs were made of perishable materials except for George Conway and George Ellis, their house walls and roofs were made of permanent materials. Overall there were a total of 113 farm buildings (22 stables, 1 coach house, 23 cow houses, 21 piggeries, 21 fowl houses, 21 barns, 1 turf house and 2 cart houses.
George Conway (47) was married to Mary (49). At the time of 1911 census, they were married for 12 years, had 6 children, 6 of whom were still alive in 1911. George documented his occupation as an agricultural labourer and farmer, he could not read. Mary did not record her occupation, she could read and write. George and Mary lived with their 6 children: John Joseph (11), George (9), Mary Elizabeth (8), Bridget Teresa (6), Annie (4) and Kate Agnes (1). John Joseph, George, Mary Elizabeth and Bridget Teresa were all listed as scholars. The 4 eldest children could read and write. The 6 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Conway family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 1 room. George Conway owned the land his house was situated along with 1 fowl house.
Julia Mullarkey (62) was a widow. Julia recorded her occupation as a farmer. Julia lived with her 2 single children William (24) and Mary Anne (19). William documented his occupation as a farmer's son. There was no occupation listed for Mary Anne. The whole household could read and write. All 3 members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Mullarkey family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Julia Mullarkey owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 2 cow houses, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Lawrence McHugh (42) a single man worked as a farmer. Lawrence lived with his unmarried aunt Catherine (77). There was no occupation recorded for Catherine. Lawrence and Catherine could read and write. They both spoke Irish and English. The occupants lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Lawrence McHugh owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 2 cow houses, 1 piggery and 1 barn.
Margaret Mullarkey (57) was a widow, who documented her occupation as a farmer. She lived with her 4 single children. Thomas (37) documented his occupation as a farmer's son. Teresa (26) recorded her occupation as a farmer's daughter. There was no occupation listed for Cecelia (20) and Sarah (19). The whole household could read and write. All 5 members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Mullarkey family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 7 rooms. Margaret Mullarkey owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house, 1 barn and 1 cart house.
Michael Bones (51) was married to Bridget (50). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 24 years, had 6 children, 5 of whom were still alive in 1911. Michael documented his occupation as a farmer. There was no occupation recorded for Bridget. Michael and Bridget lived with their 2 children. Sarah (15) did not document her occupation. Michael (13) was listed as a scholar. The whole household could read and write. All 4 members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Bones family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Michael Bones owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house, 1 barn and 1 cart house.
Michael McManus (54) a single man worked as a farmer. Michael lived with his sister unmarried Honor (50). Honor did not record her occupation. Michael and Honor could read and write. They also spoke Irish and English. Michael and Honor lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Michael McManus owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Bridget Harte (74) was a widow. She lived with her 3 single children. Michael (44) and Thomas (40) documented their occupation as a farmer's son. Annie (29) did not record her occupation. Bridget and Thomas could not read. Michael and Annie could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Harte family lived in a 2nd house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Bridget Harte owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
James Rattigan (80) was married to Margaret (72). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 46 years, had 12 children, 8 of whom were still alive in 1911. James recorded his occupation as a farmer, he could not read. There was no occupation documented for Margaret, she could read and write. James and Margaret lived with their 4 unmarried children. John (37) documented his occupation as a tailor. James (32) listed his occupation as a farmer's son. Bridget (35) and Margaret (34) did not record their occupation. The 4 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Rattigan family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. James Rattigan owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Mary Connolly (48) was a single woman who worked as a farmer. Mary could read and write. She spoke Irish and English. Mary lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Mary Connolly owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable.
John Bones (62) was married Sarah (44). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 11 years, had 4 children, 4 of whom were still alive in 1911. John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could not read. Sarah did not record her occupation, she could read and write. John and Sarah lived with their 4 children and John's brother Patrick (60). Patrick did not document his occupation, he could read and write. Patrick (10) and Mary (8) were listed as scholars, they could read and write. Naturally at this early age the twins John (5) and Austin (5) could not read. The 5 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. There was no language documented for John and Austin. The Bones family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. John Bones owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Michael Kirrane (63) was married to Catherine (50). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married 17 years, had 9 children, 9 of whom were still alive in 1911. Michael documented his occupation as a farmer. Catherine did not record her occupation. Michael and Catherine lived with Michael's unmarried sister Bridget (66) and their 9 children. Bridget did not document her occupation, she could not read. Mary Anne (15), Catherine (14), Winifred (13), Bridget (12), Julia (11) and Ellen (10) were all listed as scholars. Michael, Catherine and their 6 eldest children could read and write. Naturally at this early age Frank (7), Margaret (5) and Michael (4) could not read. The 9 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Kirrane family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Michael Kirrane owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
John McManus (66) was married to Mary (52). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 37 years, had 6 children, 6 of whom were still alive in 1911. John recorded his occupation as a farmer, he could not read. Mary did not document her occupation, she could read and write. John and Mary lived with their 6 children. James (31), John (26) and Luke (24) recorded their occupation as a farmer's son. Norah (18) did not document her occupation. Annie (14) and Martin (12) were listed as scholars. All 6 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The McManus family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John McManus owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
John (Pat) Glynn (69) was married to Winifred (67). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 45 years, had 13 children, 12 of whom were still alive in 1911. John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Winifred did not record her occupation, she could not read. John and Winifred lived with 5 of their children. John (30), Michael (20) and James (18) all recorded their occupation as a farmer's son. Delia (22) did not document her occupation. Sarah (12) was listed as a scholar. All 5 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Glynn family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John (Pat) Glynn owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Bridget Kelly (47) was a widow who worked as a farmer. She lived with 3 children. Catherine (15) did not record her occupation. Bridget (12) and Mary (9) were listed as scholars. All 4 members of the family could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Kelly family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 2 rooms. Bridget Kelly owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable.
Mary Connell (88) was a widow. Mary did not record her occupation, she could not read. Mary lived with her son John (68), his wife Catherine (60) and their 2 children Margaret (18) and Delia (15). At the time of the 1911 census, John and Catherine were married 37 years, had 10 children, 7 of whom were still alive in 1911. John documented his occupation as a farmer. Catherine did not record her occupation. John and Catherine could read only, their 2 daughters could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Connell family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Connell owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Bridget Nestor (72) was a widow. Bridget worked as a farmer, she could read and write. Bridget lived with her son Thomas (36), his wife Bridget (35) and their 4 children. At the time of the 1911 census, Thomas and Bridget were married for 5 years, had 4 children, 4 of whom were still alive in 1911. Thomas recorded his occupation as a farmer's son. Catherine did no document her occupation. Thomas and Catherine could read and write but naturally at this early stage their 4 children: Patrick (4), John (3), Mary (1) and Martin (6 months) could not read. The 3 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Nestor family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Bridget Nestor owned the land her house was situated along with 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Roger Kirrane (67) was married to Bridget (66). At the time of the 1911 census they were married for 29 years, they had 6 children, 6 of whom were still alive in 1911. Roger documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Bridget did not record her occupation, she could not read. Roger and Bridget lived with their 3 children. Mary (17) did not document her occupation. Roger (15) and John (13) were listed as scholars. All 3 children could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. The Kirrane family lived in a 3rd class house with 2 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Roger Kirrane owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
John Walsh (69) was married to Honor (55). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 35 years, had 10 children, 8 of whom were still alive in 1911. John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read only. Honor did not record her occupation, she could read and write. John and Honor lived with their 5 children. Martin (29), John (23), and Edward (21) who were single documented their occupation as a farmer's son. Norah (15) and Thomas (13) were both listed as scholars. All 5 children could read and write. The 3 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Walsh family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Walsh owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Patrick Cullina (71) was married to Catherine (68). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 38 years, had 10 children, 6 of whom were still alive 1911. Patrick recorded his occupation as a farmer. Catherine did not document her occupation. Patrick and Catherine lived with their 2 unmarried children and granddaughter. Julia (25) did not record her occupation. William (24) documented his occupation as a farmer's son. Bridget Cummins (7) was listed as a scholar. Patrick and Catherine could not read but their 2 children and granddaughter could read and write. Patrick, Catherine and William spoke Irish and English. The occupants of the house lived in a 2nd class house 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Patrick Cullina owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
John Mullin (38) was married to Annie (40). At the time of the 1911 census, they were marred for 12 years, had 4 children, 4 of whom were still alive in 1911. John documented his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Annie did not record her occupation, she could read only. John and Annie lived with their 4 children. Michael (11), Martin (9) and James (7) were listed as scholars, they could read and write. There was no occupation recorded for Catherine (5). Naturally at this early age Catherine could not read. The 4 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Mullin family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house has 3 rooms. John Mullin owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Catherine Ronayne (75) was a widow. Catherine worked as a farmer, she could not read. Catherine lived with her son Michael (48), his wife Catherine (35) and her 5 grandchildren. Michael and Catherine were married for 10 years, had 5 children, 5 of whom were still alive in 1911. Michael documented his occupation as a farmer's son, he could not read. There was no occupation recorded for Catherine, she could read and write. Luke (9) and Mary (7) were listed as scholars, they could read and write. Naturally at this early age Patrick (5), John (3) and David (1) could not read. The 4 eldest members of the family spoke Irish and English. The Ronayne family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Catherine Ronayne owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
John (Tom) Kelly (70) was married to Winifred (68). At the time of the 1911 census, they were married for 35 years, had 7 children, 7 of whom were still alive in 1911. John recorded his occupation as a farmer, he could read and write. Winifred did not document her occupation, she could read only. John and Winifred lived with their 2 single sons. James (27) and Thomas (25) recorded their occupation as a farmer's son. James and Thomas could read and write. John and Winifred spoke Irish and English but there was no language documented for James or Thomas. The Kelly family lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. John Kelly owned the land his house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
Oliver Ellis (40) did not document his occupation. Oliver lived with his sister and brother. Aylmer C (37) recorded his occupation as a Justice of the Peace. Jane (30) documented her occupation as a farmer. Isabella O'Connor (26) who worked as a nurse and a domestic servant was also recorded on the census form. All 4 members of the household could read and write. The whole household spoke Irish and English. All 4 occupants of the house were single. The occupants lived in a 1st class house with 5 front windows and the house had 11 rooms. Jane Ellis owned the land the house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 coach house, 1 cow house, 1 calf house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house, 1 barn and 1 turf house.
Honor Glynn (73) was a widow. She documented her occupation as a farmer, she could not read. Honor lived with her son John (34) and his wife Margaret (30). John recorded his occupation as a farmer's son. Margaret did not document her occupation. At the time of the 1911 census John and Margaret were married for 2 years and they had 1 son John (2 months). Honor's granddaughter Norah Loftus (12) was listed as a scholar. John, Margaret and Norah could read and write. The 4 eldest members of the household spoke Irish and English. The occupants lived in a 2nd class house with 3 front windows and the house had 3 rooms. Honor Glynn owned the land her house was situated along with 1 stable, 1 cow house, 1 piggery, 1 fowl house and 1 barn.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend. A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits (16th March 2015)
Addergoole (45)
Admiral Oliver (2)
Bridger Havorin (1)
Bridget Glynn (2)
Bridget Harte (1)
Bridget Kelly (junior) (1)
Bridget Mc Manus (1)
Bridget Mularky (1)
Bridget Nester (1)
Census (63)
Down Survey (58)
Dudley Oliver (1)
Edward Bowens (1)
Frances Kirrane (1)
Francis Fitzgerald (1)
George conway (1)
George Ellis (1)
Griffith's Valuation (57)
James Dolan (1)
James Malarky (1)
James Mc Grath (2)
James Mc Manus (1)
James Rattigan (1)
John (Pat) Glynn (1)
John Connell (3)
John Conway (1)
John Gibbons (2)
John Glynn (4)
John Jennings (1)
John mullarkey (1)
John Mullin (2)
John Rattigan (3)
John Walsh (3)
Julia Mallarkey (1)
Kinnakinelly (3)
Lawrence Mc Hugh (1)
Lord Birmingham (13)
Luke Kirrane (1)
Luke Mc Manus (1)
Luke Ronayne (1)
Margaret Mc Hugh (2)
Margaret Mullakey (1)
Martin Kirrowan (11)
Mary King (1)
Mary Mullarkey (2)
Michael Bownes (1)
Michael Colling (1)
Michael Connell (3)
Michael Gibbons (1)
Michael Harte (1)
Michael kelly (2)
Michael Mc Manus (1)
Michael Ronan (1)
Michael Walsh (4)
O'Donovan field names (54)
Old Age Pension (28)
Pat Cullina (1)
Patrick Bowens (1)
Patrick Brien (1)
Patrick Byrne (2)
Patrick Glynn (3)
Patrick Hunt (1)
Patrick Kelly (4)
Patrick Kelly (senior) (1)
Patrick Kirrane (1)
Patrick Walsh (4)
Rodger Kirrane (1)
Roger Kirrane (1)
Roger Ronan (1)
Thomas Colclough (1)
Thomas Gibbons (2)
Thomas kelly (3)
Thomas Mularky (1)
Thomas Ronan (2)
William Colling (1)
Townlands in the Civil Parish of Addergoole
Quinaltagh
Illaun
Killerneen
Gortnaloura
Coollicknalea
Gortnagunned
Dawros Upper
Carrowntomush
Cooladooaun
Ardcloon
Cloondroon
Cloonbrusk
Carrowntootagh
Cloonrane
Cloonaghgarve
Shanballymore
Ummeracly West
Ummeracly East
Pollaturick
Dawros Lower
Knockaunkeel
Dalgin
Bellaconeen
Cormeelick South
Cormeelick North
Ballymary
Cloonacross
Rosmearan

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Experience is the answer
No of Replies : 1
Addict, convict, lawyer. Those three words define who I have been, in that order.
My addiction began with cigarettes at the age of 7 and ended with shooting cocaine and morphine at the age of 20. In between, I abused cough medicine, gasoline, chemicals, pills and marijuana. And, of course, alcohol. Lots of alcohol, including what we called electrified wine. By the end of my drug run the veins in my arms and feet had collapsed. I was a world-class junkie, and had hepatitis from a dirty needle to prove it.
My first documented encounter with the police was at the age of 7. Malicious destruction of property is how it is listed in my juvenile record. It took the police 5 more years before I was rearrested. I was 12 years old. My police run-ins continued until I went to prison, St. Cloud Reformatory for Men. Before finishing out at St. Cloud, I had passed through Woodview Detention Home numerous times, Boys Totem Town twice, Lino Lakes Diagnostic and Reception Center, Red Wing State Training School for Boys and the St. Paul City Jail. By the time I went to St. Cloud to serve 5 years for burglary of a nightclub, it felt like old-home week. Of the five cell halls at St. Cloud, there wasn't a cell hall in which I didn't know a few inmates, including the segregation and isolation units. And it wasn't long before I was able to track down some shoot-dope and an outfit. But it was in a prison cell-a taste of cold steel- where I finally found redemption, and the ability to conquer the demons that had nearly consumed and destroyed me.
During the past 35 years I have been a criminal defense attorney. However, before I became a member of the bar, I obtained an undergraduate degree in political science and a law degree. I processed an application for, and obtained, a pardon. I also completed group therapy and became a counselor and then group leader at Project Newgate.
My approach to addressing clients' problems, whether as a counselor, group leader or attorney, has been to draw on personal experiences and insight earned the hard way, not from a book. This is also reflected in the posts on my blog.
Simply put, experience is the answer.
Posted in Addiction, Crime, Felons, Law, Youth	| 1 Reply
Teenagers in Criminal Justice System's Solitary Confinement not a Secret, Dark or Otherwise
No of Replies : Reply
Brian Williams of NBC's Rock Center featured a disturbing "expose' " on Friday, Mar. 22, 2013, regarding teenagers being isolated from adult inmates while in custody by placing them in solitary confinement. This occurs when a juvenile is certified to stand trial as an adult. If the juvenile is unable to post bond, (s)he remains in custody. As such, (s)he must be kept from adult inmates. Consequently, solitary confinement.
The problem juveniles pose in pretrial detention is not new. It is endemic when you mix juvenile and adult inmates. This "problem" is becoming more prevalent due to the proliferation of certifying juveniles to stand trial as adults. But isolating juveniles, even in juvenile institutions, has been commonplace for those who work in these facilities or had the misfortune of doing time as an inmate.
This is not simply my opinion; it is my experience as a juvenile who bounced from institution to institution and as a criminal defense attorney for the past thirty-five years.
From 13 years old until 20, I was in and out of lock-up facilities. Beginning in Woodview Detention Home, I was confined a week or more during each stay. Each confinement was in a small room with a bed and toilet. The rooms were not cells; rather, they had metal doors. Interaction with others was severely limited. If I was not having a meal, I was confined to my room. The lack of interaction with others was stressful; it was meant to be.
I progressed to Boys Totem Town, confined a minimum of seven months each of the three times I was there. Although BTT did not have isolation rooms during my first two stays, if a juvenile was out of control he was returned to Woodview Detention Home and placed in a secure room, isolated from all inmates. During my last trip to BTT the institution had created an isolation room segregated from the main part of the facility, two floors above where most inmates congregated. After BTT I was next confined at Lino Lakes Diagnostic and Reception Center for two months. If you could not function in the main population, you were placed in isolation in B Building. Once I was "diagnosed" at Lino, I was transferred to Red Wing State Training School for Boys where I spent the next eight months, the first forty-five days in Brown lock-up cottage. My room only had a bed. No sink or toilet; no magazines or books. No conversation, no television. It became a daily struggle to cope with the isolation. I was deteriorating emotionally, psychologically. Two years later I was sentenced to St. Cloud Reformatory for Men for five years. Upon admission I was placed in B Hall, a segregated unit where I could see inmates at the far end of the cell block as I peered out through the bars. There was no contact with inmates for the first six weeks. Out of segregation for approximately thirty days, I got drugs, a needle and a fight with a couple of guards. I was confined in segregation for thirty days. The well-used isolation unit was on the top floor of the segregation unit in D Hall.
My experiences as a juvenile and adult inmate occurred over forty years ago. Everybody in the juvenile and adult systems knew of the isolation units. There were inmates at Woodview and Red Wing that I spent time with in isolation who could not cope with the debilitating, psychological effects of confinement. They came out of isolation worse off, more unstable than they were before isolation.
Segregation, particularly for high-strung inmates, is bad. It is one step removed from inmate contact. Isolation is two steps removed from inmate contact. That is, the inmate is segregated from other inmates in isolation. No conversations. You can't even see other inmates. The atmosphere is subdued; eerily quiet. You feel buried alive.
As an attorney for the past thirty-five years, I have been aware of isolation units in different facilities. Minnesota's Oak Park Heights Prison comes to mind. Before I became an attorney I was a paralegal representing inmates at disciplinary hearings at Stillwater Prison. This program, the Legal Advocacy Project, grew out of a consent decree entered into by the Minnesota Department of Corrections after United States District Court Judge Edward Devitt issued an order condemning the isolation unit in the back-end of C Hall as cruel and inhumane.
Isolation is draconian when applied to inmates; it is devastatingly cruel when applied to juveniles, regardless of the reason. There is no justification for it. And it is the height of ignorance to respond to arguments against isolation with the pithy cliche' "Can't do the time, don't do the crime."
These "corrections" institutions correct virtually nothing. Isolation corrects nothing. It is the inmate- not the institution- that corrects the problem, be it chemical dependency, lack of job skills or education. Teenagers in the criminal justice system's solitary confinement is a deliberate, calculated policy decision based on efficiency and indifference. It's that simple.
Posted in Addiction, Crime, Felons, Law, Public Relations, Youth	| Leave a reply
Tainted Justice: West Memphis Three Freed From 18 Years in Prison Having Proved Their Innocence. Or Did They?
Posted on August 25, 2011 by Barry Voss
No of Replies : 79
In 1993 Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelly and Jason Baldwin were convicted of first- degree murder in the gruesome, and allegedly satanic, killings of Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore, three 8 year old cub scouts whose bodies were dumped in Robin Hood Hills. Steven Branch and Michael Moore drowned in 2 feet of water; Christopher Byers bled to death and his genitals were mutilated.
Subsequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences. Echols was on death row; Misskelly and Baldwin were serving life sentences.
On August 19, 2011, the three walked out of jail free and, as they contend, innocent. Innocent, after Baldwin and Echols pled guilty to three counts of first-degree murder and Misskelly pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder.
How did the West Memphis Three end up back in court after their sentences were upheld only to have their convictions and sentences vacated and plead guilty, yet claim to be innocent?
As a criminal defense attorney in Minnesota for over 30 years, I have been in this situation. It is uncommon, but not rare. Undoubtedly, after the three had their convictions and sentences affirmed on appeal, they sought " collateral review" of their cases. Collateral review is where the trial court reviews allegations of constitutional or statutory rights, as opposed to "direct review" where the appeals court reviews claims arising from the trial court.
Keep in mind that the trial courts are where trials are held. That is, prosecutors present evidence to the fact finder. The fact finder can be a judge (as in a court trial) or a jury in a jury trial. Once there is a conviction and a sentence has been imposed, then the defendant may appeal. On appeal, the appellate court does not take testimony or retry the case. The appellate court is an error-correcting court.
On appeal there are different standards of review the court applies. The purpose of these standards is to determine how much deference the appellate court gives to the trial court. In other words, if on appeal a defendant claims the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony, or evidence, the appellate court will apply the abuse of discretion standard. Why? Because the trial court heard the testimony and observed the demeanor of the witnesses. These observations are not in the record-and the appellate court does not take testimony on appeal.
Consequently, the trial court is vested with much discretion in admitting testimony. Therefore, the appellate court will require the complaining party on appeal about admission of evidence to establish the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence.
If there were a collateral review, then the defendants created a record for review by the appellate court once their claims were denied. Apparently, the three claimed that certain errors occurred at trial. Baldwin and Echols claimed that the jury committed misconduct by accessing information about Misskelly's confession that was not introduced in their trial.
All three alleged that their DNA was not present at the crime scene. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the jurors committed misconduct and to determine whether the absen of the defendants' DNA at the crime scene raised an issue of their innocence.
It is obvious that the attorneys and the judge met before the hearing to discuss the purpose of the hearing and what each side intended to prove. Based on these discussions it became apparent to all parties that both sides wanted to avoid a new trial and, potentially, either total vindication or a verdict neither side could accept.
This is how the pleas were crafted. Welcome to North Carolina vs. Alford, a 1970 United States Supreme Court decision that permits a defendant to plead guilty to take advantage of a plea offer while claiming to be innocent. I usually utilize this plea procedure where the evidence is substantial, the defendant doesn't recall what happened and doesn't want to go to trial.
The critical language in an Alford plea is that the defendant admit that the prosecution has such evidence that there is a substantial liklihood that if a jury were to hear this evidence, they would convict. But the plea also allows the defendant the right to proclaim he is innocent.
This is what Echols, Misskelly and Baldwin did. They technically admitted they were guilty so the judge could impose a sentence, but then said they are innocent. This plea arrangement allows the prosecution to close this case with convictions. It also allows the defendants to hold their heads high while professing their innocence. But it deprives the defendants from suing the state for wrongful conviction or any other tortious claim they could make.
And the West Memphis Three are on ten years unsupervised probation. No reporting to any probation officer. The purpose of unsupervised probation is to monitor the file. If any one of them is arrested for a new offense or a violation of probation, then the court will be notified and that probationer could be returned to prison for 21 years.
This quirk in the law allowed all the parties to save face.
But what about Steven Branch? Christopher Byers? Michael Moore? Did the Alford plea deliver justice? The prosecution says it did. That is why the prosecution is closing its file. There is(are) no other suspect(s) to prosecute.
And what about the West Memphis Three? How many people can say they pled guilty, were sentenced, but still are innocent? Well, actually, there are many who have been convicted, sentenced and still claim they are innocent. The prisons are bursting at the seams with innocent prisoners. Ask them.
And this is why we have the Innocence Project. It took dedication and a sharp focus on the issues to bring about what is perceived by most as justice.
Posted in Crime, Felons, Law, Public Relations	| Tagged const'l principles, felons, Law	| 79 Replies
Have Gun, Will Travel…Fast and Furious to Mexico. Thanks ATF!
Posted on August 8, 2011 by Barry Voss
Question: How do convicted felons repeatedly possess and distribute numerous guns without fear of arrest, let alone prosecution?
Answer: By purchasing guns from "straw purchasers," who purchased the guns from gun dealers cooperating with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)- an agency within the United States Department of Justice- to permit gun sales without completion of the mandatory background checks or interdiction by agents.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R. Calif.), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R. Iowa), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have been conducting congressional hearings regarding guns being purchased in Phoenix, Arizona, by those who then resell the guns to Mexican drug cartel associates, all with the cooperation of the gun shop owners.
Why would a federal agency, whose mission statement is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, conduct such an operation? As ATF spins it, the purpose of Operation Fast and Furious was to trace the distribution network to discover who are the end users/possessors of these guns.
The congressional hearings have disclosed that two other federal agencies within the Department of Justice may have been involved: the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley continue to forge ahead in their investigation, and what has come to light is disturbing. Over 2,000 guns were permitted to cross over into Mexico unimpeded. And recent evidence has surfaced that some Mexican drug cartel members acted in an informant capacity against their competitors. And they were allowed to import cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana into the United States.
Didn't ATF learn anything from the FBI's spectacle in Boston Ma., when that agency developed its Top Echelon Informant Program designed to recruit informants within the ranks of street criminals? That program ultimately snared two highly-prized Irish mobsters: Whitey Bulger and Steve "the Rifleman" Flemmi.
These two serial killers were courted by FBI Agent John Connolly, who ran interference for Bulger and Flemmi while they continued their crime spree, decimating the Mafia in north Boston and placing a choke hold on Boston street crime.
To say the FBI was outmanuevered by streetwise Bulger and Flemmi is to recognize the obvious. Now history repeats itself in Phoenix.
ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson has appeared before the committee with counsel. Why? Because evidence has surfaced that many ATF officials were in the loop, being routinely briefed on the "progress" of the program?
And, Attorney General Holder has stonewalled the committee's investigation. Why? Because many within Justice were aware of this debacle as it unfolded?
As a criminal defense attorney for over 30 years, I have handled many federal prosecutions in and outside Minnesota involving ATF, DEA and FBI. I cannot fathom a defense where I contend my client didn't intend to distribute guns or drugs; he only wanted to determine how wide-spread drug/gun possession was in his community. That is not a viable defense.
And ATF's explanation for the distribution and eventual recovery of a minimal number of guns is equally laughable.
So where does the congressional hearings go from here? Through the subpoena process the committee should be able to identify the crimes that were committed and who committed them. And then, to borrow a phrase from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. Cailf.), "drain the swamp." That is, can you say "Indictment?"
How many guns have found their way into the hands of killers?
How much dope has found its way into our communities?
How many people have died because of the arrogant and misguided policy of the ATF?
I'm reminded that our President campaigned on a platform of transparency. He selected and supported Attorney General Holder who, I assume, shares the President's core policy of transparency. Where is that transparency now? Obama and Holder should have a heart-to-heart talk, maybe over a beer.
Light is the best disinfectant. Let the hearings go forward. Hold those accountable who were irresponsble in conceiving, implementing and protecting this disasterous program. This is not about politics. It is about holding the ATF to its mission statement: prevent criminals from having guns. It is about holding the DEA to its mission statement: prevent illegal drugs from entering our communities. And it is about holding the FBI to its mission statement: to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States.
But most importantly, it is about the United States Congress carrying out its obligation: to protect its citizens from rogue agents/agencies that believe they are above the law.
Posted in Crime, Felons, Law	| Tagged const'l principles, PR	| 12 Replies
Little Wails Lost in a Sea of Rage: Why Can't We Protect Our Children?
Posted on July 30, 2011 by Barry Voss
On July 13, 2011, young Leiby Kletzky was returning from day camp, walking through Borough Park in Brooklyn, one of the safest neighborhoods in New York. The eight- year old was navigating through the streets, having been given permission by his parents to return to the comfort of his home unescorted.
This young man, maybe a little uncertain in his location, was clearly brimming with excitement and knowledge that his parents recognized in him a maturity that reinforced their decision to let him walk the few blocks to his waiting mother.
In the time it would take for Leiby Kletzky to walk that short distance, the Kleitzky family's life would be horribly altered forever. A monster would reach out to a little boy lost, a little boy searching for a friendly face to put him on the right path to his anxious mother. That was not to be.
Mr. Levi Aron, wearing a cellophane smile, stopped to give young Leiby directions. What followed is every parent's nightmare. A missing child, a frantic search and a dispicable crime that would freeze a seasoned investigator in his tracks.
Leiby Kletzky's dismembered body was found, parts in Aron's home and parts in a trash bin. The reason Aron killed Leiby? He "panicked."
On July 17, 2011, six-year old Max Shacknai died approximately one week after falling down the carpeted stairs of his father's seaside suburban mansion in Coronado, California. How often do youngsters fall down carpeted stairs without sustaining critical or life-threatening injuries?
Yet Maxie- as he was affectionately known- succumbed to the injuries his twisted and damaged body absorbed as he tumbled to his death. And the person charged with watching Maxie while his father was away? She died four days before Maxie, having been found hanging naked, with hands and legs bound.
Only through extensive examinations, including an autopsy that may detect injuries consistent with rolling injuries, will homicide detectives be able to piece together how Maxie died.
On July 22,2011, Anders Breivik set off an explosion in Oslo, Norway, and then went to Utoya Island and let loose with an automatic weapon, killing many young people attending a political youth camp. The death toll exceeds 70 people dead.
The reason for this sudden burst of homicidal rage? To combat the onslaught of multiculturalism that is transforming Norway through an influx of muslim immigrants, so says Mr. Breivik.
And he says he is not done. He'll reach out from behind the prison walls to continue his crime spree.
How do we, as a people, protect children from the devastating effects of rage? Or indifference that can lead to death?
Don't think that child abuse occurs only when there is affirmative, active physical contact. As the professionals who deal with child abuse on a daily basis know, indifference or neglect can, and has, lead to the death of children.
Why is it so difficult to protect children from abuse, ranging from emotional and physical trauma to sexual exploitation? Two words: Human nature! What do I mean by this? I mean those characteristics that distinguish us from other species in how we think, act and feel.
Any student of philosophy, particularly greek philosophy, will concede that no matter how civilized we become as a society, at our core we are brutal and barbaric toward each other. In other words, savages. Each of us, presumably, embody a human soul. Some philosophers believe that the human soul has one part that is human, rational. However, another part has desires and passions that are found in animals.
Many philosophers believe that we are born with a brain that has a "clean slate." As we mature we learn, remember and incorporate our experiences. Some of us don't do so well at incorporating the typical, "normal" responses to daily interactions within our world. We don't follow the normal conventions of what society expects in a given situation.
We rebel. We chafe against the constraints placed on us by society's expectations. For many, social mores appear to be a constant state of turbulence swirling around us. Be kind. Be accomodating. Be forgiving. Be responsible. Be protective. Whew!
If there are among us those who can't, or simply refuse to, abide by what is expected of them, how do we protect the children? I don't have the answer, but I have a suggestion.
As a free society, people are going to exploit others. Manipulate others. Kill others. Some die in the name of war, religion, politics. Others die because some of us choose to act on our hedonistic, brutish ways.
So, how do we protect our children, acknowledging that some of us cannot be trusted to cherish our most precious resource? Fortunately, there many people who, given the chance, will be vigilant protecting children.
We send smart people all the time to Washington, D.C. They implement laws to regulate commerce and our social interaction with each other. Why can't someone devise a uniform Safe Zone that could be visible throughout the communities in our country?
A nice, highly visible, maybe bright toxic green banner or flag or signage that would be prominently displayed in store windows, neighborhoods and buildings that all children would be taught to recognize as a "safe zone"-time out if you will-until danger passes.
There is no panacea to this problem. However, we can-and must-affirmatively act to protect our children who are so easily exploited. If we fail to do this, aren't we partly responsible?
Posted in Crime, Law, Youth	| Tagged Children	| 46 Replies
Little Caylee, Little Justice!
Or did it?
While I discuss this travesty, reflect on why I believe our Courts of Justice are more appropriately characterized as Conflict Resolution Centers.
The travesty I refer to is not that Casey Anthony was acquitted. It was the correct decision for the correct reason. The travesty is that the general public was misled as to the purpose of the trial. Because of this misperception the public outrage was misguided and misdirected.
Before I continue, a caveat: I did not watch the entire trial. Consequently, I don't know all of the evidence. But I do know the evidence, or lack of evidence, that buttresses my position.
Invariably, people who watched the trial wanted justice for Caylee. And when Casey was acquitted, there was outrage, anger. But justice for Caylee would, at most, be a consequence of a guilty verdict.
The reason for the trial was to hold Casey Anthony responsible for her daughter's death. But if the trial was a search for the truth, then all must abide by the rules that guide the litigants in their pursuit of justice.
Some of these rules pertain to the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and evaluation of witness testimony. To better understand the process, it helps to demystify the trial and application of these rules. There are basically three distinct parts to a trial. Jury selection, or " voir dire" (meaning to speak the truth), allows the attorneys to question each prospective juror in an affort to find bases to have the judge remove an unfavorable juror due to state of mind ("I can't presume someone charged with killing their child as innocent")or, by statute, is unable to serve ( a convicted felon). Voir dire also allows the attorneys to properly exercise peremptory challenges ( no requirement that the attorney identify the reason for striking the juror ). At the conclusion of voir dire, the jury is empanelled to hear the evidence.
The next phase-trial-permits each side to present opening statements (what the attorney's evidence expects to establish-with the observation that a criminal defendant need not present evidence since the defendant is presumed innocent ) followed by the calling of witnesses, beginning with the prosecution. At the conclusion of all the evidence (the prosecution leads with its case-in-chief; then the defense, if it chooses, presents its case-in-chief, followed by the prosecution's rebuttal and the defense surrebuttal ) and the trial phase ends with final arguments based on the evidence and the agreed-upon law.
The last phase- jury deliberation- occurs during an indeterminate length of discussion after receiving jury instructions from the judge, which each attorney had reviewed and either accepted or rejected.
If it can be argued there was a miscarriage of justice, then the blame must be placed at the feet of the prosecutors. Why? Because they chose which charges and evidence to present to the jury. They framed their " theory " (legal argument) as murder and lying to the police and their "theme" (factual argument) as " mother love " versus " party girl".
As an aside, if you watch any criminal trials, you will often hear the prosecution couch their theme in everyday, common emotions ( greed, love, hate ) that everyone understands. Simple to digest.
The defense, in a stunning revelation, identified their theory as Caylee accidentally drowned, but her death was covered up. In laying out his theory, the defense stated that Casey had been sexually abused. I say this was a stunning disclosure because as a criminal defense attorney for 32 years, I don't recall ever giving an opening statement that I was not absolutely certain I had the evidence to support it, including having prepared the defendant to testify in his defense.
Why is this so important? Because when you make an opening as the defense did, you do a couple of things you should only do with great caution. First, you assume a burden of proof you don't have.
Second, you give the prosecution an opportunity to attack the defendant in final argument. Ordinarily, a prosecutor can't attack the defendant in final argument because of the presumption of innocence. Now the prosecutor can challenge the defendant's version of what happened and, in the process, cover up or gloss over the weaknesses in their case. In effect, shift the burden by claiming the defense did not prove what it alleged in its opening statement
So, what went wrong? It certainly was not the fault of the jury. Many legal pundits are quick to blame the jury, unless the verdict is as the pundits believe it should be. However, this was a consciencious jury that followed the law. It has been disclosed that the jury foreman, alone, took over 400 pages of notes.
It's not the judge's fault. Rarely does a judge inject himself/herself into a trial regarding presenting evidence without an attorney's objection or invitation. They are loathe to intrude in the area of " trial strategy."
It's not the defense attorney's fault. He presented an opening that was, supposedly, based on good faith (i.e. he believed the evidence permitted this interpretation).
The fault must lie with the prosecution because, from my perspective, the prosecutors went out on a limb in presenting evidence from an expert that had never been peer-reviewed by others in that field ( odor detected in the car trunk ) to establish Caylee was in the trunk, decomposing. Without peer review, the opinion has not been tested to establish the expert's credibility. Undoubtedly, the jury was instructed they could consider the expert's education, the bases for his opinion, what he relied on in drawing his opinion, etc.
But the most inexcusable mistake must have occurred in the defense's final argument. Without any evidence in the record, the prosecution allowed the defense to argue that Caylee accidentally drowned. Before final arguments, the judge ruled that the defense could not comment on Casey having been sexually abused. Why? Because no evidence existed in the record. You cannot argue facts outside the record, unless opposing counsel doesn't object and you can defend your position as grounded in good faith.
Even if the prosecution had not moved before arguments to restrict the defense's reliance on accidental drowning, they could have objected during final argument that counsel was arguing facts outside the record. Had they objected, I believe the judge would have sustained the objection and prevented counsel from relying on this argument.
There was no justice for Caylee in the jury's verdict. Nor will there be. Nobody else will be charged with her death, intentional or otherwise. There was only resolution of a conflict. The prosecution said that Casey killed her daughter; the jury's verdict said otherwise.
Based on the evidence presented by the prosecutors-and the argument the defense was allowed to make-the jury reached the correct verdicts for the correct reasons. But this begs the question: Where is justice for a little girl who left this world in a garbage bag and may be remembered as a footnote to a controversial trial?
Posted in Crime, Law, Public Relations	| Tagged const'l principles, juvenile justice	| 150 Replies
Do you wanna buy meth, crack along with a slurpee at 7-11?
Posted on June 22, 2011 by Barry Voss
You may be able to purchase meth, marijuana and cocaine along with your favorite beverage at 7-11, if the Global Commission on Drug Policy has its way. The Commission's report, recently released, advocates ending the "criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but do no harm to others."
I applaud the Commission's stance on grappling with a world-wide problem, but I believe legalizing these drugs is misguided. This high-profile panel includes luminaries from politics and renowned organizations, but not anyone who has had personal experience with the ravaging effects of street drugs.
Equally important is one of the Commission's stated purposes in addressing this problem: Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.
The Commission appears to engage in a trade-off. That is, to curtail the drug cartels' vise-grip on drug distribution, the Commission would encourage countries to regulate distribution of street drugs. As a former drug user and now as a criminal defense attorney, I know some things about drugs and their unintended effects.
I know that methadone is used for "maintenance." How else can I explain why persons I grew up with and who were addicted to drugs switched to methadone and now, 40 years later, are still getting their juice every week?
I know that persons I have represented who have abused drugs, particularly meth and crack, have destroyed their physical and mental health. And I know that most of these drugs have far reaching effects on the user's family. From decimating the family unit-absentee parent, termination of parental rights, chemically dependent children-to stunting the deveopment of the family, nothing good comes from legalizing street drugs.
Except maybe curtailing the drug organizations' cash cow.
As a nation we need to address how we work with chemically dependent people. Even the Obama administration recognizes the futility in legalizing street drugs as reflected in the June 9, 2011, LA Times article regarding this country's counter-narcotics policy. But we cannot forsake those addicted at the price of trying to eradicate drugs from our communities.
If we are more vigilant in combating the prevalence of street drugs, along with a responsible, committed approach to drug treatment, then we will also recognize what anyone who has gone through treatment recognizes: treatment does work.
Posted in Addiction, Crime, Law, Youth	| Tagged Chemical Dependency, PR	| 147 Replies
Mn. Legislature's Proposed Dept. of Corrections' Budget Cut Delivers One-Two Punch To Chemically Dependent Inmates
Posted on June 7, 2011 by Barry Voss
Minnesota prisons are not Party City, nor should they be. Instead, inmates are-first and foremost-imprisoned for retribution, then rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the education emphasized is the prison-style Three R's(Respect, Reputation and Revenge).
So, when an authentic, effective drug treatment program is operating within the prison walls with documented success, it is in every one's interest to maintain the program. You would think.
The Minnesota Legislature feels differently. As reported in the May 26, 2011, StarTribune, the legislure proposes a 25 percent cut in treatment funds. This, from a program that reduces the recidivism rate by 25 percent!
How important is this program? It serves up to 1,200 inmates per year in a state with 85-90 percent of its inmates chemically dependent. The degree of dependency does not surprise me. As someone who was nurtured on a wide array of drugs in my teen years, from alcohol to hallucinogens to shoot-dope, and then spent 7-8 years in and out of juvenile and adult "corrections" facilities, followed by the last 32 years as a criminal defense attorney, it was common knowledge among inmates the extent to which inmates were addicted.
In fact, it was the inmate who never drank or did drugs that stood out as the exception to the population. Interestingly, I found as I progressed through the county and then state institutions a marked increase in drug abuse. Many times the addiction would overlay and cloud numerous personal issues, including illiteracy and abandonment, as a child and as an adult.
As Sen.Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, chair of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, stated in justifying the budget cut proposal, the priority is having task forces knocking down doors to drug houses to make the communities safer. But who do the drug houses serve? As a criminal defense attorney who handles a large number of drug cases in both state and federal courts, it is extremely rare to find a drug seller or a patron of a drug house who is not chemically dependent.
Focusing on eliminating drug houses while deemphasizing treatment is a disaster in the making. People go to prison because we-the community-want them in prison. And people will receive treatment when we-the community- decide we want them to have treatment. As Dianne Seger, director of chemical dependency services at the Dept. of Corrections, stated, "They're going to be your neighbor. Do you want them sober, or do you want them doing what they were doing?"
Surely, not all inmates in the program are genuinely interested in treatment. Undoubtedly, some are gaming the system. But at least they positioned themselves to become exposed to a healthy lifestyle alternative. With them, it might work.
But if we support a reduction in funds, we consciously reduce bed space and counselors dedicated to protecting society through drug rehabilitation, one inmate at a time.
Sen. Limmer, is that not an immediate priority?
Posted in Addiction, Crime, Felons, Law	| Tagged Chemical Dependency, Corrections, felons	| 305 Replies
Draconian Prison Sentences Smack Up Against Economic Reality
Posted on May 26, 2011 by Barry Voss
The announcement of the May 24, 2011, 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision mandating that the California Dept. of Corrections reduce its bloated inmate population by 33,000 from approximately 144,000 is a long time coming, and directly results from the state's short-sighted, "law and order" campaign carried out by politicians who had effectively highjacked the prison reform discussion years ago so as to derail meaningful reform policies.
Apparently, California believed in a corrections model premised on the adage "out of sight, out of mind." Well, now that the consequences- or downside- of this overarching, myopic view is in California's face, the state must grapple with what it has created for its people, inside and out of prison. That is, the disgorgement of 33,000 inmates who will be ill-prepared for life on the streets.
This conundrum was a long time coming. Prisoners, on the whole, are politically impotent. That is, those advocating for prisoner's rights may as well spit into the wind. For most states, it is easier to implement "get tough" legislation than to provide the necessary funds to carry out these legislative mandates.
California is a case study for the devastating effects of implementing harsh sentencing practices without recognizing that non-violent offenders outnumber violent offenders and that most non-violent offenders will return to society. A quick read of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion underscores the prison conditions and practices that gave rise to the lawsuit alleging cruel and unusual punishment violative of the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment.
References to suicides, inmate deaths from non-existent or substandard medical care and overcrowded conditions are peppered throughout J. Kennedy's opinion. Too bad California could not have foreseen this burgeoning crisis in the early 90′s when this lawsuit began. Yet, since the begining of this litigation California has failed miserably in addressing their problem.
Most states, I suspect, are facing this looming debacle. Why? Because most states were swept up in this "law and order" publicity campaign throughout the country in the mid-70′s and up to a year or two ago. With the economy tanking and a lack of resources to remedy inmate overpopulation, states will have to resolve their "prison problem" or risk having the courts intervene and dictate how the states will address this crisis.
It is not enough to turn a blind eye to the problem, hoping the it will correct itself. I don't know how deep and pervasive this attitude of denial runs, but I'm reminded of a criminal defendant I represented in Sacramento, Ca., federal court. During the proceeding my client, similar to many of the other defendants in this narcotics conspiracy case, was detained. He spent an inordinate amount of time in the jail.
After negotiating a settlement and during sentencing, I explained to the judge the horrific conditions I had been told existed in the Sacramento County Jail. Requesting jail credit for the time my client spent in custody, I asked the Court to consider granting my client twice as much jail credit based on the deplorable conditions my client endured on a daily basis.
The judge quickly rejected my request, noting that if the defendant didn't want to endure such conditions, then he should stay out of Sacramento. Apparently, it was lost on the judge that my client had never stepped foot in California; he was indicted in the Northern District-Eastern Division while residing in Minnesota.
Hopefully, my knowledge of the conditions at that jail is not typical of the community at large. Unfortunately, the jail's conditions were well known by the criminal defense bar as well as the law enforcement community in Sacramento.
Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate will be the impetus for true, genuine prison reform. If not, then we must wait for the next court to intervene. Until then, "out of sight, out of mind."
Posted in Addiction, Crime, Felons, Law	| Tagged Corrections	| 171 Replies
Transparency in Employment-How Much?
Mpls. Star and Tribune Reporter Dan Browning captured my attention with his May 9, 2011, article titled "Ex-cons make a killing selling coins". Apparently, the theme of his article is that the precious metals investment industry is rife with unsavory characters who, while selling gold coins , have engaged in unethical practices.
Mr. Browning's investigation into this wide-open industry exposes some shortcomings that seem to be typical of most businesses. The article is peppered with such terms and phrases as "convictions," "criminal records." Reference to U.S. Rep.A.Weiner, D-N.Y., who has previously introduced legislation to rein in this industry seems plausible.
Transparency is important. But how far does it get us?
Two days after Mr. Browning's article appeared, I read in the New York Times the explosive story of billionaire Raj Rajaratnam, the manager of Galleon Group hedge fund with 7 billion in assets, who was found guilty of numerous counts of fraud.
What would transparency have told us about Mr. Rajaratnam? That he was a graduate of the prestigious Warton School at the University of Pennsylvania and an accomplished invester and trader. How would the investors in his hedge fund been put on notice that he was engaging in unethical practices?
The point is that regulation of an industry does not assure the average consumer that he/she will be insulated from exploitation. But the bigger issue for me is that Mr. Browning takes a broad swipe at one of the most maligned and easily exploited groups in society: convicted felons. Surprisingly, working for one of the most progressive newspapers in the country, Mr. Browning defines this group by historical reference to where some had been in life: prison.
How does defining these employees by their past move the discussion forward regarding protecting the public? Maybe we can protect the public by marginalizing convicted felons and restrict even more their employment. Hell, they don't need to have lawful, gainful employment. They have a family- children-to provide for? Their street skills should allow for a steady income for the necessities of life.
Unless, of course, we acknowledge that no matter how flawed, these "ex-cons" are like the rest of us. I'd go so far as to say that one major difference between "ex-cons" and others working in many of our loftier professions is that the "ex-cons" have been caught. What was Bernie Madoff's criminal background before he was brought to justice?
Quite simply, until we move beyond this label of "ex-con," any dialogue regarding protecting unsuspecting investors and allowing for fair employment is meaningless.
I mean, if this country can look past Pres. Obama's associations that would have undoubtedly prevented him from clearing a background check to be an FBI agent, and yet be elected president of the United States, then we can surely look past a felon's transgressions and allow him/her be a contributing member of society.
Posted in Felons, Law	| Tagged felons	| 129 Replies


Training a dog establishes the master and follower relationship. Dogs are basically pack animals. That is why they easily accept a master as their leader. In a pack, the one who gives the commands sets the rules, and makes the decisions is considered to be the leader.
Their pack mentality is what enables dogs to carve a comfortable niche for themselves among humans. Isn't it nice to know that even if your family comprises of only you, your Lab will consider it as a pack to which he belongs. You will not find any cat following any such behavioral patterns. Cats are solitary creatures.
A dog loves to belong! So if your Lab is given the clear message that you are the boss and he is the subordinate, you will find it easier to train him!
On the flip side, if you do not establish yourself as the leader, you will find yourself facing a very queer situation indeed! If you are not the leader your dog will consider it his duty to take on the role of leader himself.
How will this behavior manifest itself? Your doggie will start exhibiting rather rude and disrespectful behavior. Of course your doggie does not really realize that his behavior is rude or disrespectful, he is merely doing what a doggie pack leader does.


Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop (Chinese: 屯門碼頭站) is an MTR Light Rail terminus located at ground level inside Pierhead Garden, Tuen Mun Ferry Pier, Wu Chui Road in Tuen Mun, Tuen Mun District. It began service on September 18, 1988, and belongs to Zone 1. It serves Tuen Mun Ferry Pier and nearby residential buildings.
The terminus has seven platforms. Platform 2 is used for route 507, platform 3 for routes 615 and 615P, platform 4 for route 610, and platform 5 for routes 614 and 614P. Platforms 1 and 6 are reserved for emergency purposes, while Platform 7 is for alighting only. It also has a customer service centre and a bus terminus.
This stop has the largest number of terminating lines in the Light Rail system (six).
The stop was opened to the public on September 18, 1988, as Ferry Pier Stop (屯門碼頭站). On the previous day, the Light Rail Transit system was declared open by Anne, Princess Royal, at this stop; the commemorative plaque she unveiled still remains intact. The stop was renamed Ferry Pier Terminus (屯門碼頭總站) later.


The makeup artist for Peter Pilotto SS11 show inspired by Parisian women style of 70s created a glam futuristic look. Sounds intriguing, looks stunning. The new trend for spring is strangely frosty, but nevertheless it's glamorous, beautiful and completely chic.
To achieve this glam futuristic look prepare a flawless complexion, even your skin tone and ditch blush. The emphasis is completely on the eyes. Silver shadow is perfect for this look. It's intense enough for evening. Apply to the inner corner of the eye and blend toward the nose bridge and up to the brow. The outer corner of the eye is less intense than the inner corner. A bit of silver under the lash line and a touch of mascara will complete the look.
Lips can be covered by lip-gloss, a little toned down for a more natural look. Hair is elegantly tucked in the low bun, a bit messy and center-parted. What do you think of this trend? Will it live? Do you love it or hate it?


text:
Q: What do you call the roof window in a car? What do you call the roof window in a car? You know, many sedans had something like that. You could then stand up on your car and enjoy the view. I am not sure what it's called anymore. Is there a word for it? I am assuming there's a word since it was all the rage during the 2000s.

A: "Sun-roof" is what you are looking for.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange