Hello, I’m #46762.

I saw my parole officer a few weeks ago. There were a couple things we disagreed on and she said that I was entitled to my own opinion. If I go all out in sharing my opinion, some may think I’m an Excon In Revolt. You be the judge.

I’ve never had the right to vote but am forced to pay paxes for all the dumb decisions your state government makes. Let me share three stories with you to clarify.

#1) Earlier this year a man was released from prison after doing 20 years for having sex with a 17-year-old prostitute. At the time he didn’t know her age. The judge was going to give him three years in prison, but he blew up at the judge. The judge got angry and blew up right back at him sentencing him to 20 years in prison. Going from a three year sentence to 20 years over an angry outburst seems very unjust when you consider the tax payer consequences. It costs a little over $35,000 a year to incarcerate a man for one year. Those additional 17 years will cost an extra $595,000 that you and I have to help pay for.

#2) There is a prison for sex offenders in Mauston, Wisconsin called Sand Ridge. The state calls it a Secure Treatment Center. It looks like a medium security prison surrounded by high fencing and barbed wire.

An inmate there got busted with a small device that plugs into a TV to watch porn. They took his TV away from him for five years. The cost at Sand Ridge is $147,000 a year. After five years that inmate gets his TV back. How many more years will he have to do before he is released? And how did he get that device in there? Either someone brought it in on a visit or a staff member gave it to him. As a result, we taxpayers get to pay $735,000 for his five-year misconduct incident.

The third incident is heartbreaking, costly and corrupt. An inmate, Mike Crabtree, did over 30 years on a life sentence and was out at Oak Hill, a minimum-security prison camp with a fence around it. He was very close to being released.

Then the unthinkable happened. Mike mysteriously gets locked up and accused of making a threat against a member of the parole board. He is then transferred to the Supermax Prison in Boscobel, Wisconsin. About 25 days later he goes before the hearing board on the conduct report. In the conduct report, it states that another inmate claims he overheard Mike say he was going to stab a member of the parole board. This threat supposedly took place in church. Inmates must sign out before going to church. So was the snitch’s name last on the list, or was the name added days later? Was the second snitch’s name even on the list? If anyone had tried to stab a member of the parole board they’d be caught instantly. In fact, they’d get a life sentence and may have to do it all in maximum security. 

I like to look at issues from multiple angles. Mike is a devote Christian. He worked in the power plant back then and could have walk away at any time, but he was a trusted inmate and proved his trust in word and action. He’s had a good record. His goal was to be a prison chaplain. After the incident he asked to take a polygraph test and have his accusers take one too, but prison authorities refused his request. Why? We don’t know.

At first we were told it was one inmate who made the accusation, but why would someone make up such a big lie against a devote Christian? Could he have shared Jesus with someone who had a deep hatred for Christians. Making up this big lie not only shut him up, but also got him transferred out of there.

If some inmate was going to see the parole board, what a testimony he could give them by saying, “I overheard a fellow inmate say he was going to stab one of you so I am reporting it. After all, isn’t saving your life worth a parole? Now my life may be in danger too so what are you going to do to protect me for saving yours?” A threat against a staff member means little to the parole board, but uncovering a threat against one of their own needs to be rewarded. Since very, very few parolees are granted parole these days, coming up with this lie might have been the perfect plan for a parole that the parole board has ever seen.

Could it be that someone in authority fabricated the whole incident. Mike was working in the power plant, saw the parole board and got a 12 month defer. Then someone in authority got him fired, saying “you can’t work there if you’re coming off a 12 month defer.” Mike appealed his firing and got his job back because there was no record he did anything wrong. Again he was fired and again he filed an appeal. Evidently that must have made someone insanely mad. I ask myself why that person in authority didn’t take Mike aside and say to him “withdraw your appeal or something bad will happen to you,” but they didn’t.

A conduct report was then written on Mike, but later dismissed because according to regulations, you need two inmates witnesses to make an accusation against another inmate. No problem, the captain rewrites the conduct report word for word and this time supplies the name of a second snitch. Did the captain find a second snitch, make up a name or just pick any inmate’s name to write down? No one knows the names of the snitches but the captain who wrote the conduct report and possibility others in authority. Maybe the one who got Mike fired.

Why couldn’t they ask each snitch if he would willingly take a polygraph test?

In the mean time, Mike was sent to the Supermax Prison and then moved to Waupan Correctional Institution for nearly three years.

Mike declined to see the parole board while in maximum security. After he was transferred to a medium security prison he saw the parole board. They gave him another three-year defer. Then someone in Madison mysteriously changed the records to four years–that’s seven years. 

So who’s lying? Mike, the snitches, or the captain? And why don’t authorities search for the truth?

My plea is to have an honest person contact the authorities at Oak Hill Prison Camp and get the names of the two snitches. Most likely they’ve been released by now. Contact each one and ask two questions: Is it true you snitched on Mike Crabtree when you were at Oak Hill? If both answer yes, then ask if they are willing to take a polygraph test. If both deny snitching, then was the captain motivated to lie? Was the captain pressured to put an end to Mike’s appeals? We want the truth to come out. If it doesn’t, we have to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to defend Mike’s frame up, because that’s exactly what it was.

Think about it, if a black inmate accused a white prison guard of calling him the N-word, and another two inmates also said they overheard the guard call him the N-word. I think most would agree the guard should be fired if it were true. But what happens if the guard said it isn’t true and says. “I want to take a polygraph test and want those three inmates to take one too.” At that point firing the guard would be totally wrong. The right thing to do is ask each inmate privately if he were willing to take a polygraph test. Usually the guilty party will refuse the test.

In this case, Mike Crabtree asked to take a polygraph test and for his accusers to take one too. Friends of Mike are willing to pay for each test because we know Mike is innocent, but how does one prove it? If the story was fabricated, authorities may destroy the record of the snitches. Or worse yet, kill off the men who supposedly snitched. That’s the way things subtly happen behind bars. Presently Mike is doing an added seven years because of one lie and we don’t know how many more years after that. But this defamation of Mike’s character is a major crime.



If someone made a threat against the president, or a governor, they would get a fast track real trial, not a predetermined outcome trial in front of a parole board, and if found guilty, most likely they’d get a lesser sentence.