As you know, last September the BOP changed its email system to make mass emailing of this newsletter impossible.
This is a copy of the newsletter for May 5, 2025. I have reformatted it to eliminate graphics so everything printed in black will fit into a Corrlinks email (if you are providing it to an inmate).
LISA Newsletter for May 5, 2025 – District Court Calls ‘Pants on Fire’ to US Attorney
LISA publishes a free newsletter sent to inmate subscribers in the Federal system. Due to BOP Corrlinks limitations, the newsletter must be sent in small batches throughout the week.
Edited by Thomas L Root, MA JD
Vol 11, No 18
<><>
Pardons: Crime And Drama
What Profits A Man…
Lucky 13?
<><>
PARDONS: CRIME AND DRAMA
Former Dept of Justice Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer last week claimed on social media that President Trump’s pardons of white-collar defendants have cost Americans $1 billion.
Oyer totaled the money that the pardoned people owed or might owe in restitution and fines. Some pardon recipients had not yet been sentenced, leading her to estimate the restitution that might be imposed. The pardoned people who had begun paying restitution can seek reimbursement from the government.
Oyer, fired in March over her opposition to a DOJ decision to restore actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights, said “that the $1 billion figure highlights the unusually high number of Republican allies convicted of fraud and pardoned by Trump before they served their sentences — a significant break from the traditional and often protracted pardon application process,” the Washington Post reported.
“It’s unprecedented for a president to grant pardons that have the effect of wiping out so much debt owed by people who have committed frauds,” Oyer said. “They do not meet Justice Department standards for recommending a pardon.”
Law360 reported last week that the spate of White House pardons is resulting in fraud defendants being solicited by scammers who promise to use White House connections to secure clemency in exchange for big fees.
The pitches call for payments of hundreds of thousands or millions, “prey[ing] on the desperation of people serving or facing prison time,” Law 360 said. “Historically, seeking a pardon was seen as a low-percentage effort, something that would be very difficult to pursue as part of the defense strategy, except in the most obvious circumstances,” white collar defense attorney Joe Whitley told Law360.
One clemency pitch recently sent to a bank fraud defendant called for payment of $155,000 a month for six months, and an additional $1 million “success fee.” The consultant claimed to have access to Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort, according to the defendant’s lawyer. The defendant was also pitched a different clemency service for $3 million for “advocacy with the Trump administration for a pardon and/or case dismissal,” Law360 said.
“Unfortunately, a lot of what’s going on and a lot of the decisions being made are setting up corruption — it’s making this all dependent on having access to people in power and charging money for that access,” one big law firm partner told Law360.
One white collar sentencing consultant was quoted as saying that a legitimate clemency package costs about $40,000 to $50,000 but not more than $200,000. “Selling a guaranteed pardon because of a perceived relationship is a problem,” the consultant told Law360. “In my opinion, it’s gross negligence to say, ‘I can get the president of the United States to grant this clemency on your behalf’.”
Washington Post, Fired DOJ attorney says on TikTok that Trump pardons cost U.S. $1 billion (May 1)
Law360, Pardon Me? Why Offers To Secure Clemency Might Be A Scam (Apr 24)
<><>
WHAT PROFITS A MAN…
Things were finally going Roy Romanov’s way. He had served about 10 years on a 20-year white-collar offense, with a spotless disciplinary and programming record, when he was sent to CARES Act home confinement (HC) in July 2022.
About a month later, however, the halfway house supervising Roy’s home confinement told him to come by the following day. He did, whereupon the US Marshals whisked him back to prison without so much as an explanation why, let alone a chance for him to argue against the return.
Bureau of Prisons officials told Roy his HC was revoked because he had only served 47 pct of his sentence, short of the 50 pct required. Later, the excuse changed: the BOP said Roy was returned because a hue and cry had been raised by his fraud victims. That was false as well: no one had complained. Finally, the excuse became that the US Attorney’s Office that had prosecuted Mike a decade before had yipped that Roy, who had no criminal history prior to the fraud and a recidivism rating of “minimum,” was nevertheless a bad guy who should not benefit from home confinement.
Roy filed an 18 USC 2241 petition for habeas corpus, arguing that he had a protected HC liberty interest that could not be taken from him without first giving him a hearing at which he had notice of the actual reason for the revocation and a chance to argue against the decision. The district court held last week that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. But the judge did so in a reluctant decision that blasted the government for what the court clearly saw as a string of lies that would have done Pinocchio proud.
Roy, “who had no infractions during his brief time on home confinement, was never given a hearing or any formal process before being returned to custody,” the Court wrote. “The record contains no indication that BOP identified a violation of any condition of release, and the Government does not contend otherwise. Instead, the Government’s position has shifted over the course of this litigation, from categorical ineligibility, to discretionary revocation based on purportedly new victim concerns, to reliance on prosecutorial input. The shifting nature of the Government’s explanations over the past three years—some of which were initially presented to the Court in sworn declarations—has given rise to serious concerns about its candor, particularly in light of the absence of any alleged rule violation or contemporaneous justification in the record.”
The court noted that “[t]his sequence of events—release, compliance, revocation without explanation, and eventual exclusion from clemency—raises serious due process and liberty concerns. At a minimum, the record reflects institutional miscommunication, inconsistent representations to the Court, and a complete lack of transparency in the process by which Mr. Romanov was returned to custody… [T]he handling of Mr. Romanov’s revocation calls into question the fairness and transparency of the entirety of the underlying process.”
Ultimately, the district court ruled that Roy’s petition “must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, or the execution of his sentence in any way that is subject to judicial review as defined by current precedent. Rather, it challenges the BOP’s discretionary decision to revoke a particular placement—that is, to require Mr. Romanov to serve his custodial sentence at [a BOP facility] rather than at home under the temporary authority conferred by the CARES Act. That decision, however unfair or unjust it appears to be, does not alter the amount of time Petitioner must serve, nor is it inconsistent with the sentencing court’s judgment. It therefore falls outside the scope of § 2241.” HC is merely a “change in the location where the inmate serves his sentence,” the Court said, still within BOP custody but “simply a less restrictive site of confinement.”
The court also rejected the theory that a 2241 petition could challenge the BOP’s abuse of discretion in revoking HC. The Court admitted that it tended to agree with a line of cases permitting “limited review of BOP actions that are so arbitrary or capricious as to violate due process,” but it found that those decisions were based on a case in which the BOP decision effectively extended the petitioner’s custody beyond what the sentencing court intended. Here, Roy’s overall sentence remained unaffected, with the only issue being where he would serve it.
The Court concluded:
To be sure, Mr. Romanov’s revocation appears to have been unfair, unjust, and done without any process. As such, there can be no doubt that it raises legitimate concerns. The record suggests that his HC was revoked not due to any misconduct or change in eligibility, but rather because of pressure from prosecutors after the fact. The Government has offered multiple, inconsistent explanations for its decision, and admits that it afforded Mr. Romanov no process whatsoever. But troubling facts do not create jurisdiction where none exists. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Where, as here, Congress has committed a decision to the unreviewable discretion of the BOP—see 18 U.S.C. 3621(b)(5)…—§ 2241 offers no basis for judicial intervention.
So the government won. But as Jesus once asked, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” The US Attorney may be about to find out.
The day after its dismissal, the District Judge ordered the government to show cause why its attorneys and witnesses should not be punished for the lies they told the court. Two BOP employees who provided affidavit were told to “submit sworn statements… explaining the sources of information on which they relied for the factual assertions made in their declarations and the steps they took to ensure the accuracy of those statements…” After that filing, the Court said, government lawyers must “appear in person” before the Court to “show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed.”
Romano v Warden, Case No 23-02919, 2025 USDistLEXIS 78025 (DNJ, Apr 24, 2025)
Order to Show Cause (ECF 71), Romano v Warden, Case No 23-02919 (DNJ, Apr 25, 2025)
<><>
LUCKY 13?
William K. Marshall III has been sworn in as the 13th BOP Director, the agency reported last week.
The number ‘13’ is traditionally seen as unlucky. Superstition or not, Marshall will need a large dose of good fortune to right the BOP, let alone to avoid the fate of the prior three directors, who were fired or quit under pressure.
On his plate immediately, a BOP corrections officer was indicted last week in the EDPA US District Court for allegedly sexually abusing an FDC Philadelphia inmate by using force. The US Attorney’s Office said the inmate was injured during the incident, which occurred last July.
Ironically, last week the Senate passed the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act (S.307), sponsored by Sen Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Sen Jon Ossoff (D-GA), to address inmate sexual harassment and sexual assault of BOP staff. The bill, intended to build on the DOJ Inspector General’s 2023 report about inmate-on-staff sexual harassment, now goes to the House of Representatives.
The same bill passed the Senate late last year but died when Congress ended without the House acting on it.
The law that would provide additional protections to federal inmates, the Federal Prison Oversight Act, became law last summer, “but it hasn’t gone into practical effect yet, due in part to funding issues,” Washington Stand reported last week.
Marshall’s most immediate problem is perhaps the most insoluble. The BOP’s struggles with severe staffing shortages that are chronic and well documented, yet Trump’s Dept of Government Efficiency just eliminated BOP employee retention bonuses, created in 2021 to keep prisons open. Trump’s Executive Order stripping BOP employees of collective bargaining rights, handed down a month ago, exacerbated the crisis, which is now “a self-fueling monster [with] low staffing levels cause mandatory overtime, stressful conditions, burnout, and, unsurprisingly, high rates of turnover,” the Hill said last week.
Marshall has inherited a tinderbox. Pleasing his bosses while keeping it from igniting will require skill and more luck than his predecessors have had in the last seven years.
BOP, Deputy AG Blanche Swears in William K. Marshall III (Apr 28)
Cherry Hill Courier-Post, Cherry Hill corrections officer accused of sexual abuse at Federal Detention Center (May 2)
Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act (S.307)
DOJ Inspector General, Evaluation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Efforts to Address Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Committed by Inmates Toward Staff (Feb 23, 2023)
Federal Prison Oversight Act, PubL 118-71, 138 Stat 1492 (Jul 25, 2024)
Washington Stand, Trump’s First Step Act Was a Monumental Success. His New Administration Has a Chance to Build On It. (May 1)
The Hill, Prison understaffing: A crisis seen by few, felt by prisoners and prison employees (Apr 26)
<><>
The LISA Newsletter is copyright 2025, LISA Foundation, PO Box 636, Norwalk OH 44857.
The newsletter uses pseudonyms for any inmates named in cases we report on.
Your family may read our newsletter online (or print it to send it to you by snail mail) at www.lisa-legalinfo.com.
PLEASE SHARE THIS NEWSLETTER