Sirak Lawsuit

Norman L. Sirak
Attorney at Law
75 Public Square, Suite 800
Cleveland, OH 44113

02/14/06

Sirak Releases Appeal Brief Draft
IIAO Mr. Sirak will be sending this out next week to all of his clients, and it will be a little further along. But this draft represents a lot of work already. Appeal Draft

02/02/06
Sirak Class Action Suit Dismissed Feb. 1st
Judge Carr Issued His Opinion and Dismissed the Case In Its Entirety, but Sirak Will Be Back
IIAO Becki Miller broke the devastating news today through e-mail and the Parole Reform Discussion Group. Federal Judge Carr's decision represents a conflict with other recent rulings in similar suits against the APA, not the least of which are Dotson, Layne, Ankrom, and the January 12th Ohio case in Hernandez. Our hearts and prayers are with the clients, their families, the Siraks, the Millers, and all the volunteers who gave of themselves to get us this far. Something must have gone awry.

On July 20, 2001 this class action suit was filed against the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, (Parole Board). Plaintiffs are challenging the complete process of reviewing and deciding upon granting or denying parole to an Ohio inmate convicted under Ohio's prior sentencing law. Although it was originally open to everyone under the Old Law, it now has been restricted to the clientele of Norman Sirak. To join the class, please see the official Parole Reform web site.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

DENNIS MICHAEL, et al.

Plaintiffs

vs.

MARGARETTE GHEE, et al.

Defendants

Case # 3:01CV7436

Judge James G. Carr

Plaintiffs, acting through counsel, move the Court for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(C) for Abuse of Discretion, Arbitrary and Capricious Decision-making, Violation of Separation of Powers, Bad Faith, Violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause and violations of the Equal Protection Clause.

December 9, 2003
Sirak finishes filings for Summary Judgment
Progress Report January 16, 2004
Progress Report February 17, 2004

June 28, 2002
Filed: Answer and Cross Claims for Summary Judgment

This single spaced version [152 pages] is available for download in:

MS Word format:
Requires MS Office97® or higher
fsj.doc
461kb Download time: 1min 30sec @56Kbps
Adobe PDF format:
Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.75MB
fsj.pdf
462kb Download time: 1min 30sec @56Kbps

Associated Charts and Graphs referred to in this motion

How does the Ohio Parole Board justify their actions? They justify their actions by their “new” Ohio Parole Board guidelines. However, Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Judge Nodine Miller, recently ruled on March 29, 2002, in case no. 00CVH08-7676, Poluka v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, that the Ohio Parole Board's GUIDELINES WERE NOT PROMULGATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PURSUANT TO R.C. 119.01 TO 119.13, INCLUSIVE and as such HAVE NO FORCE AND EFFECT, BEING THEREFORE NULL, VOID, AND UNENFORCEABLE AS MANDATED BY R..C. 119.02. The court's order enjoins the APA from classifying Poluka, for parole purposes, pursuant to the "new" guidelines and orders the APA to utilize standards which were prior to the advent of its new guidelines. (THESE PAROLE GUIDELINES WERE ADOPTED IN 1998 BY ODRC AND WERE “RETROACTIVELY” APPLIED TO “OLD LAW” INMATES. Old law inmates are inmates who were convicted prior to July, 1996 when Senate Bill 2 was enacted.)

Recent Filings in this case
01/13/03 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
02/03/03 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Partial Dismissal
02/13/03 Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition To Dismissal
03/11/03 Federal District Court Order
04/01/03 Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
07/21/03 New Law Suit Norman Sirak v. Margarette Ghee and Derek Farmer
12/08/03 Final plaintiff filings for Summary Judgment

Copies may be found at the Official Parole Reform Web Site

Plaintiff Eligibility
All old law inmates qualify, regardless of when they will see the parole board. This is because the established guidelines adopted by the APA have already robbed them of the minimum sentence imposed by the trial court, and any possibility of a meaningful review for parole, as required by law.

If someone is under the new law with a prior old law number and has completed the old time requirements (time and parole), and completed the new 'flat time', but the Parole Board is trying to charge them with a parole violation based on their old number, they are eligible.

If someone is on a technical violation and being forced to do more than 12-18 months for the violation by the Parole Board, they are eligible.

Contact Mr. Sirak at the address above or by email and ask for the application. A fee of $220 is required to retain his services and become a client, and named plaintiff. This can also be done with a downpayment of $100, and $10 per month thereafter.

Facts v. Rumors
Mr. Sirak has not been approached with a deal from any state official.
Mr. Sirak has not been disbarred, nor is he under investigation by the FBI.
Mr. Sirak has not received a frantic phone call from the Attorney General's Office, asking to settle.
Mr. Sirak is still taking new clients!

Information about Injunction Notice from Ankrom v. Hageman Case no. 01CVH02-1563
Inmates may have seen this Notice of Preliminary Injunction posted at the institution and wondered if it nullifies their ability to be a plaintiff in Sirak's suit. It does not. Inmates can be members of both classes.

Official Parole Reform Web Site

E-Mail Mr. Sirak

Norman Sirak does not work with or for the IIAO Inc., this page was added to our web site to facilitate
a factual information presence on the Internet in support of this action.