Store
by Ronnie Winn
Dear Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer over the California Board of Parole Hearings:
Proposition 57 does not provide a Board of Parole Hearing Initial Suitability Hearing. The words Initial Suitability Hearing, Indeterminately Nonviolent Third Striker, nor BPH are mentioned in Proposition 57, Article (1) Section (32) – period!
On May 6, 2019, I received a letter from your staff attorney, J. Logsdon, stating: “If and when you are eligible for the nonviolent parole process, you will be notified by CDCr.”
Mr. Logsdon does not mention a suitability hearing nor does Proposition 57, Article (1) Section (32). Mr. Logsdon also says: “Please direct any questions about your eligibility for ‘this (nonviolent) process, or any parole suitability hearing to the Case Records Division at your institution.’” Mr. Logsdon separates the two:
1. BPH
2. Indeterminate nonviolent Third Striker, Striker Initial Suitability
3. Consultation Hearing, etc.
Ms. Shaffer, let’s be factual: The BPH does not have a nonviolent Third Striker Process implemented. The BPH only has a violent murder process. That process was not established by Proposition 57, Article (1) Section (32).
Ms. Shaffer, the appellate courts are crystal clear in these six bullet points:
- Section 32 of the California Constitution does not include extrinsic language such as: Indeterminate Nonviolent Third Striker Parole Process.
- CDCr and BPH cannot add sentences to the Constitution that do not exist.
- The Primary Term is not computed by the BPH. The term is computed without regard to Board action.
- CDCr seeks to add words to Section 32 that simply are not there.
- No such language appears in the provisions. Neither the court nor administration agency has authority to add language to the Constitution.
- Since Indeterminate Sentence goes unmentioned in Section 32, CDCr’s attempt to add such sentences must necessarily fail.
Ms. Shaffer, your Initial Suitability Indeterminate Lifer Board Hearing is predicated on murder and Marsy’s Law. My wrongful conviction is for a nonviolent offense, California Penal Code Section 192 (b) – involuntary manslaughter, pursuant to the alternative sentence Three Strikes law that has been excluded from board action.
Since the passage of Proposition 57, Article (1), Section (32), Ms. Shaffer, BPH and CDCr have intentionally ignored the explicit wording of ‘excluding/excluded,’ and by intentionally ignoring the ‘excluded’ word, you are committing crimes against my humanity.
Therefore, I am making preparations to sue you and the others for this malfeasance and fraudulent process aka Initial Suitability Indeterminate Nonviolent Third Striker Process.
Excluded and excluding means:
Exclude – remove, destroy, expunge, not use – it never existed and does not exist; to prevent the participation or inclusion, ban, bar, count out, eliminate, except, rule out, blackball, blacklist, ostracize, banish, deport, exile, expel, oust, throw out, block, hinder, impede, distract, cease, discontinue, halt, suspend, deter, stave off, ward off.
Excluding – not including
Exclusive – belonging only to the one person or group name, i.e., enhancements, consecutive sentences, alternate sentences, and nonviolent Third Strikers.
Parole means:
Parole – conditional release of a prisoner whose sentence has not expired.
The Emancipation Proclamation signed in 1863 declared that all persons held as slaves “within the rebellious Confederate states” shall be free.
Since the passage of Proposition 57, Article (1), Section (32), Ms. Shaffer, BPH and CDCr have intentionally ignored the explicit wording of ‘excluding/excluded,’ and by intentionally ignoring the ‘excluded’ word, you are committing crimes against my humanity.
Ms. Shaffer, the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution signed in 1865, regarding the abolishment of slavery, was short lived because of the exception clause. Slavery and involuntary servitude were abolished, “except” as punishment for a crime. That exception clause is the catalyst to re-enslavement, mass incarceration and the racist draconian Three Strikes law.
One hundred fifty-one years later, the people voted in Proposition 57, Article (1) section (32), “excluding” enhancements, consecutive sentences and alternate sentences for nonviolent Third Strikers who have completed their full Primary Term for a nonviolent offense, by implementing and terminating the alternative sentence by incorporating the exclusion/excluding of alternative sentence in Article (1) section (32).
The BPH, CDCr and Ms. Shaffer are in flagrante delicto and intentional violation of the wishes of California voters by ignoring the word “exclusion” in Article (1) Section (32) of the California Constitution.
Closing statement
Ms. Jennifer Shaffer, BPH and CDCr continue to deprive me of my liberty and mental well-being, thereby violating my constitutional rights under the California Constitution Article (1) Section (32) and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I have been incarcerated for 20 years because of a nonviolent offense: Penal Code Section 192(b) – involuntary manslaughter. I was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 27 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes Alternative Sentencing law. However, that maximum term of sentence for this nonviolent offense is a total of four years imprisonment.
My indeterminate sentence is terminated.
Proposition 57, Article (1), Section (32) excluded that alternate Three Strikes sentence, thereby re-incorporating the determinate penal code, not the indeterminate statute. I have exhausted my determinate sentence of four years, five times over, by the laws of the California Constitution Article (1), section (32).
My indeterminate sentence is terminated. I have exhausted the determinate sentence; however, I am still being held and deprived of my constitutional freedom because the BPH, Ms. Shaffer and CDCr continue to acknowledge the Indeterminate Alternative Three Strikes Law and intentionally ignore the voters’ intent of Proposition 57, Article (1) Section (32), the exclusive clause of this proposition.
I will not participate in a fraudulent Initial Suitability Hearing. This Initial Suitability Hearing was not established by Proposition 57, Article (1) Section (32), of the California Constitution.
Sincerely,
Ronnie Lashan Winn
P.S. If the attorney does not advocate my nonviolent release, pursuant to Article (1) Section (32), I will file a complaint with the state bar against the lawyer.
Addendum
I refuse to allow Jennifer Shaffer or the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to castigate me concerning the splinter in my eye as a nonviolent Third Striker when she has a log in her own eye as the director of the BPH.
I see Jennifer Shaffer as a malicious, narcissistic, draconian tyrant who deserves the punishment of the Sisyphus stone. However, because I practice nonviolence, I refuse to cast stones.
I juxtapose Jennifer Shaffer to a highly sophisticated courtesan, with a courtly, wealthy upper-class clientele because she perpetually copulates over all nonviolent Third Strikers.
George Floyd – I can’t breathe … I can’t breathe … I can’t breathe.
Black and Brown lives matter
by Ronnie Lashan Winn aka Scratch/Line – but everyone calls me Dynamite
Black’s law dictionary defines “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius” as follows: The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another, etc.
In construing statutes, contracts, wills and the like under the maxim, the mention of one thing within the statute or other document implies the exclusion of another thing.
The law presumes a voter was aware of all law in existence impacting the proposition in 2016 affording nonviolent offenders parole consideration when those nonviolent offenders served the maximum term on their primary offense “excluding” all enhancements, consecutive sentences or alternative sentences.
Proposition 57 required the secretary of CDCr to implement regulations to carry out the proposition’s intent.
The secretary wrote regulations implementing the nonviolent parole consideration process; however, he included Marsy’s Law, which was written for violent offenders, to govern the newly enacted nonviolent parole process.
The voters could not have meant the Proposition 57 nonviolent parole consideration process to be governed by a “violent” parole consideration statute.
If the voters wanted existing regulation and existing statute to govern the new regulations, they would have no need to require the secretary to write new regulations to govern the new nonviolent parole consideration process.
The voters could not have meant the Proposition 57 nonviolent parole consideration process to be governed by a “violent” parole consideration statute.
Adopting Marsy’s Law – a statute enacted for violent offenders – violates the voters’ intent in passing the Proposition 57 nonviolent parole consideration process and its requirement of regulations to govern its implementations for nonviolent Third Striker offenders, pursuant to California Constitution, Article (1) Section (32).
Graciously I dedicate this article to my four beautiful Grandchildren: Mona mi, Azariyah, Poppa Roberts and Lil Ronnie – I love U A.W.O.L.
Your Paw Paw, Dynamite
George Floyd – I can’t breathe … I can’t breathe … I can’t breathe.
The final segment of this argument is inspired with dynamic wisdom and knowledge of Brotha James Menefield. He is a scholar in the science of jurisprudence. – Dynamite
A serious letter to Attorney Emelike Kalu
Attorney Emelike Kalu, Sept. 9, 2021
I just received your appointment on Sept. 8, 2021, so I will be extremely blunt.
For generations the so-called educated negroes have “led” their Black brothers by echoing the white man’s thinking, which naturally has been to the exploitive white man’s advantage.
Do you realize the major reasons why America’s white man has so easily contained and oppressed America’s Black man? Because until just lately, among the few educated negroes, scarcely any applied their education – as I am forced to say the whites do – in searching and creative thinking to further themselves and their own kind in this competitive materialistic dog-eat-dog, white man’s world.
For generations the so-called educated negroes have “led” their Black brothers by echoing the white man’s thinking, which naturally has been to the exploitive white man’s advantage.
Attorney Emelike Kalu I refuse to allow you to represent me for any reason if you possess a Black body with a white man’s head.
In other words, I will not allow you to represent Ronnie Lashan Winn as a puppet and parrot for the white man’s lynching.
Addendum
Any lawyer who is hired and paid to represent a nonviolent Third Striker at the parole board’s suitability hearing, which is predicated upon violence and murder in violation of Prop 57, pursuant to Article (1) Section (32) of the California Constitution, is lower than a parasite, a leech, a lamprey eel, and must never identify themselves as a practicing student of jurisprudence.
I could care less whether the lawyer is Black, white, green or imitation polka dot – they are sell-outs; a parasite of the worst unethical kind, a pettifogger, and all of these sell-out lawyers deserve the identical Siamese punishment as the unethical director, Jennifer Shaffer of the BPH; and that punishment must be an indeterminate sentence of life in hell condemned eternally to repeat the cycle of rolling a heavy rock up a hill in Hades only to have it roll down again as it nears the top – aka the Sisyphus Stone.
Attorney Emelike Kalu, I’m a wrongfully convicted innocent Black man, sentenced to life in prison for a nonviolent offense. However, I know I’ve been slated for immolation. But before I capitulate, I will stand in the center of hell and spit at the flames.
Last words of caution
My Brother Kalu,
Do you know what those white racist you work for in Sacramento call you? They call you the same thing they call me, and you have the white man’s law degree. Brother Kalu, they call you – Nigger.
Brother Kalu, do not sell out nonviolent Third Strikers to a draconian systemic racist parole board predicated upon White Supremacy. You must advocate outside of the racist board room and advocate for all nonviolent Third Strikers to be released forthwith because they are nonviolent, and their nonviolent offense does not evoke the Board’s consideration.
Prop 57 Article (1) Section (32) mandates a nonviolent parole process. It does not exist. If it does exist, what is it? Nonviolent offenders are to be punished and released – not sentenced to civiliter mortus.
Ronnie Lashan Winn
George Floyd – I can’t breathe … I can’t breathe … I can’t breathe.
Send our brother some love and light: Ronnie Lashan Winn, P82076, California Men’s Colony State Prison, F-14-091, P.O. Box 8101, San Luis Obispo, CA 93409.
