the Department, subject to its developed guidelines, “to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution or any other court-ordered obligation — ” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)(5). This Court held that [t]he Legislature has hot provided an exception for gifts placed in an inmate’s personal account, and it does not require the Department to account for the source of all funds in an inmate’s personal account before making deductions. The personal account of an inmate may be derived from various sources, including wages, gifts and government benefits. The source of funds is of no moment. Danysh v. Dep’t of Corr., 845 A.2d 260, 263 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (emphasis added), aff'd, 584 Pa. 122, 881 A.2d 1263 (2005). Moreover, althoug 552 A.2d 750 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because “Act 84 allows the Department
holding that a plaintiff cannot assert a statutory claim for wages under the labor law if he has no enforceable contractual right to those wages holding that discriminatory pay reduction under fair labor standards act does not constitute continuing violation holding that a workfare participant is not an employee of a municipality for the purposes of workers compensation because participant neither received nor could have expected to receive remuneration or wages for the services that he performs holding that inmate remuneration for prison labor does not constitute wages under section 8127 of the judicial code holding that inmates have no constitutionally protected interest in the wages earned while in prison