Leslie Van Houten, the murdering slut who went into a stranger’s house, put a bag over her head and killed her is suing the Warden of her prison. Her lawsuit is filed essentially the same as the one filed by Susan Atkins.
As a disbarred attorney I will translate---
Leslie alleges
1- That she is sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.
2- That there is a checklist of things that one needs to do to obtain parole.
3- That she has done all these things.
4- That by denying her parole in 2004 the Warden and the commission viokated her rights.
5- That she is thus being held there illegally and that the government should show cause why she should not be released immediately.
6- That barring that she is to be considered a political prisoner being held illegally by the State of California.
Christie Webb, Leslie’s attorney, also alleges that Staten Island Jim has no nutsack in the pleadings. Okay, okay I jest.
I understand why Leslie is doing this. She isn’t getting out ever anyway, so why not? I mean, she could light herself on fire that would get her out sooner. But she is trying all legal remedies. Everything short of granny porn.
In a nutshell, she says “I have a right to parole and have done everything right and you suckers are not letting me out.”
Probably doesn’t help that she calls the Warden and others names and sues them. But whatever.
Why does her argument fall to the ground? Because she doesn’t have a right to parole. It is that simple. It is POSSIBLE she could get paroled. But she won’t.
Why then does she keep suing?
What else does she have to do with her time?
[Pictured- Leslie the killer and her great father who said on CNN that he never has talked about the murder of Rosemary LaBianca with his daughter the fucking murderess]
11 comments:
Hello Col...thanks for the new column.
The lvh supporters all indignantly say that she must be released if she's done all the things on the check list etc.
My question about that concerns the California Supreme Court decision in 2005 known as the Dannenberg Decision...where the SC reversed the ruling of the lower courts (allowing parole in a reversal of the denial by the pb) because of the viciousness of the crime. The decision stated that the prisoner, convicted of the second degree murder of his wife, was not suitable because the viciousness of the crime made him unsuitable and therefore there could be no comparison to others with similar sentences allowed parole.
So is that decision not now a precedent and won't it apply to Leslie Van Houten as well? The parole board always closes their decision with facts about the viciousness of the crime...something she doesn't want to talk about any longer.
Also, isn't any fact or circumstance of the crime allowed consideration by the parole board in their decision, not just rehabilitation and whatever else is on the checklist?
Awesome has always.
For me, Kathy Boudin comes to mind, and she was paroled in 2003 despite the NY State system trying to get a reversal of the PBs decision.
It is a philosophical dilemma to me, because I agree that LVH is a murdering harlot but also agree with the points she makes regarding her suitability for parole...and don't believe for one minute that she is a threat to society at all anymore.
A major consideration is: would she do it again?
I'd have to say no.
Welcome back Col, it's good to see you again!!
=)
I'd have to say that after decades in prison, it's unlikely any of the women would do it again. Doesn't mean they deserve freedom though...
and that's the point to consider thoughtfully...does she deserve freedom? Her sentence allows for it...yet apparently whatever she does won't be enough for her to gain her freedom. So if that's the case, then why do we even bother sentencing someone to the possibility of parole?
As the Col points out, BB has served the longest time in prison for anyone who ever killed a drug dealer way back in 1969. The only reason he hasn't been paroled is because of his association with CM. And because that is the only thing keeping him in prison today (remember the art show, people?), then he is indeed a political prisoner. As is anyone else being held just because of their associations with CM.
Pristash said...
and that's the point to consider thoughtfully...does she deserve freedom? Her sentence allows for it...yet apparently whatever she does won't be enough for her to gain her freedom. So if that's the case, then why do we even bother sentencing someone to the possibility of parole?
As the Col points out, BB has served the longest time in prison for anyone who ever killed a drug dealer way back in 1969. The only reason he hasn't been paroled is because of his association with CM. And because that is the only thing keeping him in prison today (remember the art show, people?), then he is indeed a political prisoner. As is anyone else being held just because of their associations with CM.
"consider thoughtfully"...that's a good way to phrase it, Pristash.
Her sentence allow for the possibility and I think it is considered thoughtfully and with a lot of effort. However, aside from what she's done in prison, it's the facts of the crime...not her association with CM, that keeps her from "deserving" parole. And like her lawyer says, the facts are something she can't change.
But I do believe Bbbby Beausoleil's association with CM is what's keeping him. The circumstances of his crime, vicious though they are, don't resonate with the same premeditation and conspiracy as the TLB murders.
Like the Col said...parole is not a right of her sentence, it's a possibility. And it may be that justice for the victims means there isn't anything she can do...except live her life in prison with acceptance that parole is a possibility and not a right.
Welcome back Col. There is nothing LVH can do in prison to help her get released. No meetings she attends or programs she participates in will ever help her. This is all she has left. It didn't work for Atkins and I doubt it will work for Les either.
Maybe it's just the photo, but doesn't LVH's daddy look a little like Dick Van Dyke today? Just a thought.
Agree LVH is there for the long haul.
Wonder if someone "higher up" in politics &/or government has a vested interest in keeping the Tate-LaBianca killers imprisoned. Not just for votes, either.
Post a Comment