Good Meeting

Bottom line: what the federal government is asking the state of Ohio to do is ignore their own constitution. Not a good thing.

Step one: present a petition to the court. We presented Mr. Good with the previous court's judgment and with the psychological that was done at the request of the court. He will familiarize himself with those and I will get a statement from my therapist, my former PO who requested early release from ccommunity control, and other letters of character reference.

The request will be to not require a change in status based on the previous court's ruling.

Step two: appeal based on the unconstitutionality of the law.

The attorney general of our fair state is very aggressive. Mr. Good feels that there are already a considerable amount of appeals in the pipe with regard to the new law and it's seemingly arbitrary changes in status for individuals already adjudicated.

He will hold off on the petition until the alotted 60 days are almost up with the hope that there will be no need to go to court based on the petitions and appeals already in the pipe.

When the meeting was over I asked Nelson what he thought and he said I had to answer first. Mr. Good is very different from Mr. Fisher. At my trial I needed a Mr. Fisher. He is older and his stability drew out a trust in me that was very important at the time. Mr. Good is more aggressive. He took a lot of time to explain things to us. He exudes a confidence that I need right now. Both men appear to be right for the time at hand!

Afterwards Nelson and I went out to eat. Friendly's. It was good. We talked for quite a while. That was good, too.

And your prayers were the best of all!