"The National Parole Commission has again blocked Veronza Bowers, Jr.'s right to be released on mandatory parole after serving more than 31 years in prison....(its) third in a series of high-handed and improper actions to deny (him) his right....in complete disregard of the Commission's legal obligation to follow applicable federal statutes as well as its own rules and regulations. We believe this latest and most egregious decision, made at the request of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is politically motivated, disregards Veronza's exceptionally good conduct in prison, and is an unlawful denial of his right to due process."
The lawyers also provided background information and explained that Bowers was legally entitled to "mandatory parole" since April 7, 2004 because:
-- no evidence showed he might commit a crime if released;
-- he hadn't violated prison rules; or
-- committed serious infractions during his years of incarceration; in fact, he's a model prisoner.
Nonetheless, his parole was denied. Then on October 26, 2004, Federal Judge William Terrell Hodges of the Middle District of Florida ruled on a habeas writ and ordered the Commission to hold a hearing within 30 days and release Bowers on "mandatory parole" if he complied with the above three qualifications.
A December 21, 2004 hearing was held at which nationally-recognized criminologist and Clinical Director of the National Center of Institutions and Alternatives Hans H. Selvog testified. He administered a battery of psychological tests and determined that Bowers is normal, socially well-adjusted with no criminal disposition, and an excellent candidate for parole.
Examiner Rob Haworth also testified that Bowers was eligible for "mandatory parole." He said he believed he was one of the most worthy candidates he'd encountered and recommended that he be released on February 18, 2005. Commissioner Cranston Mitchell ordered it based on Haworth's assessment.
Yet on that date, at the last moment, the Commission notified the Coleman Correction Facility warden that the parole was rescinded, and the five-member Commission would reconsider his case. Besides political pressure from Washington, the ruling was based on unsupported allegations of ranger Patrick's widow and members of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). The woman supported her dead husband with no knowledge of the facts. FOP members cited spurious allegations of prison rule violations, including arranging for two contract killings.
Earlier on August 26, 2005, Association of National Park Rangers president Lee Werst wrote Thomas Hutchinson, chief of staff, US Parole Commission as follows:
"....we believe a decision by the Commission to parole Mr. Bowers would send the wrong message to the federal law enforcement community we all depend on to protect our public lands and citizens. Indeed, it would send the wrong message to Mr. Patrick's family and friends, to every employee of the National Park Service, and to all federal agency personnel - that the memory of Ranger Patrick's ultimate sacrifice somehow holds lesser importance than the early release of a convicted murderer."
On March 21, 2005, a rehearing was held and affirmed the previous December's recommendations: namely, that no credible evidence supported denying Bowers release. Between March 21 and May 16, the Commission exercised its "original jurisdiction" and voted two in favor, two opposed, and one abstention on parole. Anything less than a majority meant Bowers should be freed. June 21, 2005 was his scheduled release date, but on June 14, at the request of AG Alberto Gonzales, the Commission rescinded it without notifying his lawyers so they and Bowers could respond.
Attorneys Gaynor, Chaset and Levenson considered this action "to be without a proper basis in law. There is no statutory authority whatsoever (for it). It is our position that the original jurisdiction decision by the Commission constituted final agency action and any further action taken in this matter violates due process."
What's most objectionable is how the politicization of Bowers' case made an impartial administrative process impossible. Gonzales' intervention was "illegal, unprecedented and pander(ed) to the political agenda of his administration's constituents." It defiled the case's merits and kept him incarcerated to this day, over four years later.
On June 6, 2009, Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer Rhonda Cook said "US Magistrate Susan Cole....wrote in a final report and recommendation order that US Attorney (General) Alberto Gonzales improperly meddled in (his) case (and that Bowers should) be paroled immediately."
Cole said Gonzales "had no statutory or regulatory authority" to get involved and by doing so affected the Commission's impartiality. In a recommendation to US District Judge Charles Moye, assigned to handle Bowers' 2008 lawsuit, she added that the decision to keep Bowers imprisoned "cannot stand." A Commission spokesperson declined to comment. Current Bowers attorney Charles D. Weisselberg was confident that an honest review of the case would yield a favorable decision for his client.
