Typical Shit

I got a response from the Regional Director on the appeal I filed concerning the excessive sanction I got for telling Unit Team staff that they were “pieces of shit” (for screwing me over to my face and then lying to make it look like I was screwing myself over [see: "Pieces of Shit"]. My appeal very specifically requested, not that the sanction be reduced (from 120 days, or four months, of no personal phone calls), but only that the excessiveness of the sanction be somehow justified (since the infraction was my first in the five years I've been here, and the behavior --- i.e. using the word, “shit” --- was barely an “offense” at all).

The Director “denied” my appeal, and instead “referred” the hypothetical circumstance that I used in the appeal itself (where I tried to point out that with no justification for the sanction then it could easily be retaliation) to the “appropriate office for review and appropriate action” as “allegations of staff misconduct”.

In other words, they turned my appeal into an “allegation” against staff, which it was not. I know from many years of experience in the System that staff allegations almost invariably get turned against the prisoner making the allegation unless the prisoner has solid proof (which all staff learn quickly how not to provide and/or conceal). So, I “implied” possible staff misconduct (to support my argument for a justification of the sanction), but I deliberately made no actual accusation.

And now Unit Team staff are already giving me an even colder shoulder than usual, no doubt because they think I “reported” them for “misconduct”, even though I didn't (at least, not officially --- because it's only the “official” reports that matter to them).

And because the Regional Director made my accusation “official” (even though it wasn't made that way by me), it can be used to “weaken” any
official allegations I make in the future, even if I have strong proof (such is the case with my allegations of unconstitutional conduct by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer for finding me guilty of having “child porn” in my cell even though there was no “porn” at all in my cell, and the picture he called “child porn” was issued to me in an opened and inspected letter and did not violate any laws or B.O.P. policies --- he only found me “guilty” and sanctioned me severely, including a $75 fine, because he personally found the picture “offensive” --- see: "Child Porn" Found In My Cell... Again). And “they” know this, which I'm sure is the only reason they made the “accusation” official at all. It's just another example of how the system does injustice in order to sustain the illusion of a need for justice.

[J.D. Dec 10, 2015]

Supreme Court Appeal

My lawyer told me that he is filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning my three Federal death sentences. It is extremely unlikely --- less than a tenth of one percent chance --- that the Supreme Court will even consider the appeal (“crapshoot justice” in action).

The issue my attorney wants the Supreme Court to consider is whether or not someone (generally, but me specifically) should be executed without a review of all the available facts and evidence at the time of trial. My lawyer claims that my case creates a definitive standard, not only because I declined to appeal (on my own behalf), but also because when I represented myself at the sentencing trial (after I plead guilty against my attorney's advice to all charges with no conditions or “deals” with the persecutors) I did not present any mitigating evidence or testimony.

So, basically, what my lawyer is asking the Supreme Court to consider is whether or not “we” (the people) should kill someone after essentially only hearing one side (the persecutor's side) of the story.

As I mentioned, it's not very likely that the Supreme Court will even consider this question (they get to pick and choose what questions are “worthy” of their esteemed consideration), but submitting the question --- any question the “defense” lawyers can come up with really --- is just the next step, of many remaining, in the systematic process of killing someone in this country.

[J.D. 10-20-2015]

Revisiting "Pieces of Shit"

A few months ago, out of sheer frustration over being screwed so badly by Unit Team staff again, I told them, “You're the pieces of shit, not me.” So, I was written up for “prohibited act 404” (using abusive language), consequently found guilty by the Unit Manager, and sanctioned the loss of “phone privileges” for 120 days.

That means four months of not being able to call my lawyer, my mom, or my girlfriend, just because I said the word “shit” out of frustration over being unfairly treated. I don't call my girlfriend that often because she lives outside of the United States of America (it costs me $15 dollars just to talk to her for 15 minutes; which, needless to say, means I simply can't afford to call her as often as I'd like). It is also expensive to call my mom ($3 dollars for 15 minutes), even though she does live in the states, and even the most expensive phone service providers wouldn't charge more than 50 cents for the same call from a payphone! And, since my mother is aged and forgetful, calling her is really the only way I have to keep in touch with her, because she rarely ever remembers to write, even when I send her stamps and paper to do so. She loves it when I call though.

Since I have been on “phone restriction” (amongst other things) for the last four months already, because of another completely unfair write up that I got for having a picture in my cell of a little girl (prepubescent) wearing no shirt (so, according to the B.O.P., she is “displaying her breasts”, quoting the Regional Direction, Paul M. Laird, himself!) I haven't heard from my mom at all since April! (Fortunately, I have a wonderful girlfriend who calls her for me to let my mom know I'm okay, and to let me know how my mom's doing as well.)

This sort of unfair treatment is unfortunately very much the standard for how things operate around here, and in any American prison for that matter. Just ask anyone in prison and they'll tell you. Or, if you don't want to ask, just look up one of the many “sense of justice”-studies that have been done. These studies are usually state-funded, because they show a direct correlation between prisoners who feel unfairly treated and recidivism. But, don't bother asking a prison employee. Their job --- not to mention their moral sanity --- depends on their belief in the “fairness” and “justice” of the System they work for.

Prison employees routinely misuse the stats from the same studies I just mentioned in order to justify even more unfair treatment of prisoners. To them, it is all fair – merely because they're the authority. And in their minds (again, out of sheer necessity) authority is never wrong (or unfair). So, if more than 90% of the prisoners complain of unfair treatment (as the studies consistently show), then that only proves (in their mind) that 90% of the prisoners are liars, who deserve to be “punished” in general. They even invented a term for it; they call it “criminal mentality” (which, of course is rationalized exactly the same way “Jewish mentality” or “Negro mentality” was rationalized in the past). Thus, they feel licensed to treat prisoners as unfairly as they want; because they deserve it!

I think the ridiciously excessive sanction I got for using the word “shit” to express my frustration over unfair treatment is a pretty good example of this kind of oppressive reasoning. The Unit Manager didn't give any reason at all for the severity of the sanction. So, maybe he's punishing me because a few weeks before I accused him (without using abusive language) of being a hypocrite and a liar because he is always going around preaching about how he follows the rules, but then he selects what rules to follow and ignores the ones that are inconvenient for him to follow (as most bureaucrats do). At the time he did not reply to my accusation, but just walked away. So maybe now he is “punishing” me for “not respecting authority” (a VERY popular excuse for “punishing” prisoners without apparent cause). In his mind, he is no doubt just giving me the “punishment” I “deserve” (for not respecting his authority). But, to me, it seems as though I am being “punished” harshly for merely blurting out the word “shit”. To me, it seems extremely unfair.

Who knows? Maybe he is being fair. But, that doesn't matter if I can't see the fairness in it. And I'd be willing to “see” it, if there was even so much as a clue of it. But, there is no clue, no evidence of fairness, and for me, no justice at all in the sanction. So, I appealed it to the warden. In my appeal, I simply asked for an explanation for the excessive sanction. The warden “denied” my appeal. So, I appealed to the Regional Director (in Kansas City, Kansas), asking the same thing, “Why am I being punished so harshly without explanation?”

The Regional Director responded by sending a memo to the Unit Manager pointing out that he had made a minor (and completely irrelevant) clerical error in the paperwork from the disciplinary hearing. (He failed to say explicitly why I was “guilty” --- even though I openly admitted that I said the word “shit”. Apparently, my statement alone was not considered “evidence” of my guilt – remember, 90% of all inmates are liars --- so the Unit Manager was required to write in that his findings were based on “staff witness statements”.) So, the Unit Manager had to call me back to his office for a new hearing in order to correct the error.

And thus their precious “illusion of justice” is sustained (I actually heard the Federal judge in my case say once, “It is important that the appearance of justice be maintained”, as an excuse for denying a petition that one of my lawyers had made!). My appeal was returned for a new hearing, and that makes their statistics look good (i.e. the number of appeals that get action instead of just being denied). Nevermind that it was “returned” for a reason that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the appeal itself. And nevermind that they completely ignored the one issue I raised in the appeal (“Why am I being punished without clear cause?”). It only matters to them that “the appearance of justice (fairness) is maintained”. It is the “M.O.” of the “Justice System”. Not justice; but, only the appearance of justice is what matters. It is what every official in the “Justice System” is expected to do in order to earn their paychecks. And, as the Federal judge in my case clearly demonstrated by his bold statement in court, they don't even realize the difference!

(My brother was a wannabe-cop, which really strained my relationship with him after I got out of prison; but, I tried really hard to love him regardless. Once, during a rare conversation with him while I was on parole in Seattle, in which he was openly criticizing “criminals” as deserving everything they got, I pointed out to him that when we were kids (and inseparable) he did all the criminal things I did --- often with no encouragement from me --- including child “rape” (i.e. putting his penis in a younger child's mouth). His response totally confused me at the time, and didn't seem to make any sense. But, he said it as though it made all the sense in the world; he said, “Sure, but I didn't get caught!” I'm only now, all these years later, coming to understand what he was saying, or more correctly: what he WASN'T SEEING. Like anyone else who believes in human justice, he had been conditioned to see no difference between how things “appear” on the surface, and how things really are. To him, the truth is what you believe, not what is. This is necessary for any system of beliefs to be maintained --- and the Criminal Justice System is no more than a system of beliefs; it is a religion, in the truest sense; and with all the hypocrisy and violence that goes along with any religion!)

What do they suppose my reaction to all this unfairness is going to be? I can only imagine that they imagine I will “learn my lesson”, and perhaps “respect (their) authority” in the future. Anyone reading this blog (hopefully) realizes that that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The only thing I'm going to learn, and the only thing any prisoner learns from being so screwed so often (treated unfairly) by the system (and hence, by “authority”), is that if justice is to be had, then it must be taken for oneself. It certainly isn't going to come from the “Just-Us System”.

So, the system is literally teaching --- in fact, training! --- criminals to resist the system, to seek justice on their own terms, and to take what they deserve from anyone who supports the “system” (i.e. “law-abiding citizens”). For me, that meant taking revenge. For others, it means taking control back in some other way. But, as long as “they” keep giving criminals what they “deserve” (e.g. punishing us for no reason, but just because we are “criminals” who deserve to be punished in general), then crime will happen, because it must happen in order to justify the church (i.e. system of beliefs about justice). Without demons, and witches, and evil in general, there would be no need for religion. So, in the past, these things were invented in order to justify the churches existence. 

 

And today they still are.

[J.D. August 8, 2015]

"Child Porn" Update 3: Regional Response

On the 23^rd of July I received a response for my Regional Appeal that was dated July 13, 2015. The appeal was denied for nonsensical reasons. The Regional Director gave only one reason for denying the appeal. He claims that; “The photograph you possessed depicted a young girl displaying her breasts, thus meeting the sexually suggestive standard.”

This claim, as usual, is nonsense. The girl in the picture is clearly prepubescent and has no “breasts” to display. Yes, her chest is exposed. But, since when is a flat-chested prepubescent girl's naked chest considered “sexually suggestive”? Apparently since the picture was found in MY cell!

I submitted my appeal to the B.O.P. General Counsel in Washington, D.C., on the same day I got this nonsense denial. I don't expect the General Counsel's response to make any more sense, so I kept it short and sweet, as follows:

DHO Appeal for IR#2682805. I was found guilty for 305, contrary to facts, eveidence, and BOP Program Statements. The Regional Appeal Response also mistates and misrepresent the facts and evidence of my appeal and defense. A 305 is “Possession of anything not authorized […] AND NOT ISSUED THROUGH REGULAR CHANNELS.” The picture found in my cell WAS IN FACT ISSUED THROUGH INMATE MAIL in full compliance with all program statements. Regional claims the picture depicts “a young girl displaying her breasts”. But, the girl in the picture is prepubescent and has no breasts by any standard of definition, legal, social, or biological. The picture was not issued in error, as the evidence shows such pictures (of shirtless prepubescent girls) are routinely authorized for general population in both correspondence and commercial publications. I cannot be held accountable if it is later deemed inappropriate after it was issued to me, especially when I had no reason to think that it was not authorized! I request this incident be expunged and all sanctions reversed. Thank you.

[J.D. July 23, 2015]

P.S.:

On August 1, 2015, I submitted to following “Request for Informal Resolution” 
to Unit Team Staff:

I am requesting an informal resolution in the following matter:

The August 2015 issue of National Geographic Magazine, which I have an authorized subscription to, has a prominent (full page) picture of a “female minor who is shirtless and standing in a provocative pose” (p. 70). Since the DHO has ruled that such images are not authorized (Incident Report #2682805), and the Regional Director has also declared that such a picture is against BOP Program Statements because it depicts “a young girl displaying her breasts,” (Administrative Remedy #821661-R2) I must assume that the August 2015 issue of National Geographic was issued through the inmate mail by “human error” (as suggested by the DHO). So, according to explicit instructions from my attorney, I am seeking written clarification as to whether the above mentioned picture is authorized or not. My request for clarification regarding the authorization of this picture is so that I can comply with the disciplinary sanction that asserts I “will be held responsible” for having such pictures in my possession even when they have been issued to me through regular channels (i.e. inmate mail) in error. I request clarification from someone authorized to do so. Thank you. 

National Geographic - August 2015, page 70

P.P.S: (Appended Sept. 1, 2015)

   On August 4, 2015, I received the following response, (from Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist, S. Morin; presumably, mailroom staff):

There are instances where National Geographic could have photographs of nudity which are authorized. PS 5266.011, Incoming publication, states, "The following are examples of commercial publications that contain nudity illustrative of medical, educational, or anthropological content, which are allowable: National Geographic and Our Bodies, Ourselves".
Accordingly, the publication should be allowable per policy. However, there is no relation between this publication and other photographs that are not allowed. Also, be advised, if a photo is removed from the publication, it is no longer considered part of the publication and subject to the rules set forth in policy concerning photographs.

   On August 21, 2015, I received a copy of this "Child Porn Update 3" as posted on August 13. The copy included the picture above, now "removed from the publication".

Accordingly I submitted to Unit Team staff on August 24, 2015:

I am at this time seeking further clarification concerning the response I received below. 

On 8-21-2015, I was issued a letter through regular inmate mail that contained a copy described below of a prepubescent girl, posing "erotically" (by the DHO's own definition) and displaying her breasts (according to the Regional Director), which appeared in the August 2015 issue of National Geographic magazine. The girl in this picture is in fact being prepared to attract a husband (according to the caption), which makes it far more "sexually suggestive" than the picture I was recently severely punished for having in my possession. According to the DHO's report, this picture is "Child Pornography" simply if he, or someone else, decides that I am aroused by it. So, I must once more seek clarification since the picture has now been sent to me, and "removed from the publication".

I see no difference in the nature of this picture and the one I was found "guilty" of possessing because the DHO believed I was aroused by it. Both are clearly sexually suggestive and "erotic" (according to the DHO) pictures of a prepubescent girl around the same age. Both girls are "displaying their breasts" (according to the Regional Director). Both pictures were mailed to me unconcealed and unsolicited, and consequently issued to me through regular (inmate mail) channels after being opened and inspected by the mailroom staff. And both pictures have been removed from popular "G-rated" magazines.

Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist, S. Morin (below), advises that, "if a photo is removed from the publication, it is no longer considered part of the publication and subject to the rules set forth in policy concerning photographs". Accordingly, I must once more assume that this picture has been issued to me by "human error" for which I am responsible.

If the picture IS AUTHORIZED, then I request specific reasons (i.e. other than race and culture, what makes this picture different from the one I was infracted for) so that I can inform my friends, and better protect myself from serious incident reports in the future.

If the picture is NOT AUTHORIZED, then I request an informal resolution/complaint against the staff responsible for continuing to issue me material in the mail that can, and HAS, resulted in my being severely punished.

Thank you.

And, on August 25, someone (?) responded thusly:

Since there is indication from what you've noted in regard to your responsibility, that you may not be authorized the picture that you describe as being sensitive in nature, and questionable in regard to the same, from what you allege that has been mailed to you unsolicited, and for it having been removed from the publication, refer to the aforementioned. Consequently, you are directed to despatch such picture(s) from your person and premise, and dispose accordingly. You may also advise your correspondent the potential conduct code violation trouble hazard, that receiving such unsolicited material(s) in the mail places you in relation to the adorementioned policy, and to refrain from such in the future that you may not avoid adversity concerning your conduct status.

To which I replied on August 31, 2015:

Thank you for your reply.

As I understand this reponse, the picture that was issued to me through regular institutional channels (inmate mail) is in fact unauthorized as described. I will dispose of the picture in question promptly, and inform my friends of the concern as advised.

However, since this is such a serious threat to institutional security that it warrants exceptional punishment when I am found to have such a picture in my possession, I am requestiong an informal resolution to prevent such pictures from being mistakenly issued in the future. My request may be stated as follows:

On 8-21-2015, I was issued a letter through regular instituational channels (inmate mail) that contained a picture, unconcealed and unsolicited by me, that has been determined to be against B.O.P. policy. The picture was of a prepubescent girl, displaying her "breasts" (as defined by the Regional Director in Administrative Remedy 921661-R2). The DHO has severely punished me for having a similiar picture that was also issued to me through the mail in the recent past. So, I requesting that the mailroom policy/procedures be reviewed and revised to prevent this sort of serious incident from occurring so regularly.

Then, on September 1, 2015, a staff member, whom I intentionally will not name here, came to my cell door and essentially "warned" me that if I pursue an official grievance in the above regard that the result would likely be highly detrimental for me. And, because of the respectful way this information was presented to me, I ultimately advised him that I would withdraw my "request for informal resolution", after I spoke to my attorney (I just happened to have a confidential legal call scheduled on the same day so I could consult with the attorney who is helping me on his own time to appeal this "Child Porn" accusation). My attorney and I agreed that "poking the bear" wasn't likely to help matters any.

[J.D. 9-3-2015] 

Censored Reality

It has come to my attention that there is a way for Federal prison officials to restrict me from blogging my experiences of the truth here on the Fifth Nail (or anywhere else). All they have to do is «re-designate» me to an «S.O.M.P.» (Sex Offender Management Program) prison, where they can then impose almost any restriction they want simply because I am a «sex offender». They can restrict not only who I write, but even what I write about. Anything that even hints at «anti-social thinking» can be restricted!

Because of this threat, I have decided to curb the tone of my expositions for this blog, so that they do not, for example, contain anything even suggesting that «adult-child sexual relationships» are natural, because such a suggestion could easily be used to justify restricting me from writing any blog content at all.

According to the policy, any correspondence in which individuals are discussed in a «sexualized way» can be restricted. So can anything that reflects a «degrading attitude» or «romanticize adult-child sex». Pretty much anything that «offends» the censor's (prison staff) sensibilities can be restricted at S.O.M.P. prisons.

So, in order to prevent inviting such a «re-designation» (which may already be in the works due to the so-called "child porn" that was taken from my cell), I will be censoring myself for now. I hope I won't have to do so for long, because there is still a lot of «shocking truths» that I hope to «expose» here some day (I've been stalling on writing much of it already because of concerns over «offending» the wrong people). But, at least until I know if I am going to be «re-designated» or not, I must restrict my content to the benign «safe» stuff that doesn't threaten the power and control of those who make the laws and enforce them in this country (a.k.a. the Pharisees).

I apologize to those who read this blog for its unique and honest view of the truth; but I don't make the laws or rules, so what can I say?

Really? What can I say? What can anyone say?

[J.D. June 25, 2015]

"Pieces of Shit"

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at approximately 8:30 a.m., Mr. Shepherd, the SCU Case Manager, came to the door of my cell and woke me up for my six-month «Team Review». I had been awake all night working on my DHO appeal, and had only been asleep for less than an hour. Mr. Shepherd opened the tray slot in the cell door, and I got up to speak to him at the door through the slot. I signed the six-month review «package» of usual B.S., and then Mr. Shepherd showed me the «FRP contract» that I had specifically requested via e-mail to Mr. Edwards, the SCU Counselor, just a week before. As I expected, the contract was not compliant with the BOP Program Statement for the «Inmate Financial Responsibility Program» (IFRP). The proffered contract was an agreement to pay $25 per quarter. This was money that was supposed to go toward paying my «legal debts» (court ordered fines and restitution, which for me is $100,000 in fines, and $133,927 in restitution), which I prefer not to pay using money sent to me by my friends, if I can avoid it, which I can, if I ask them not to send me more than $450 every six-months; assuming Unit Team staff decide to comply with policies. But, in this case, they were not.

I had only $490 sent to me in the last six months (this would have been only $450, but one of my friends sent me some money unexpectedly for my birthday). The IFRP policy requires that $450 be subtracted from all deposits in the previous six months, and that only the remaining funds be «considered» for FRP payments. That meant that the $25 per quarter (i.e. $50 for six months) was $10 over what policy allows. This is what I questioned Mr. Shepherd about.

Mr. Shepherd said he'd have to have me «pulled out» (i.e. escorted to the Unit Team office area) in order to «discuss» it. I said, «Okay.» And he closed the slot and left. I assumed I would be «pulled out» shortly, so I got my copy of the FRP policy from my locker, then sat down and wrote out a «Request for Informal Resolution», in anticipation that the «discussion» would not result in compliance with the IFRP policy. Then I stayed awake, even thought I was very tired, waiting for a guard to come cuff me up and take me downstairs to the office area.

After a couple of hours go by I become convinced that Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Edwards have screwed me over again the way they did at my last six-month review, by claiming that I «refused» a contract that they never even offered me. That time I had only $400 in the previous six months, so I was well under the $450 allowance. But, I have e-mails from Mr. Shepherd in which he claims I was offered $25 per quarter payments, and that I refused. Mr. Shepherd lied. So, I thought he was going to lie again and say I refused again. Thus, I'd be restricted to spending only $25 per month for commissary --- barely enough to buy coffee, sweetener, and hygiene supplies, and not much else, for another six months. So, when I saw Mr. Shepherd walk past my cell at about 11:30, I asked him about the «Team Review». He said that he'd requested that I be pulled out two hours ago, but «they» hadn't done so yet. So I told Mr. Shepherd, «I'm not refusing the FRP plan.» And he said, «Okay.»

At a little after 11:00 a.m., the unit c/o's brought lunch, as usual. Then at 11:20, or so, Mr. Edwards came to my cell door and told me he was pulling me out for «Team». He cuffed me through the tray slot with my hands in front of me, but without the mandated waist-chain that is supposed to be used when cuffing an inmate «in-front» for hearings and such. He then escorted me by himself (I'm supposed to have two c/o's on all escorts, down from three for the first two years I was here) down to the Unit Team office.

In the hall outside of the office, I saw a c/o sitting at the end of the hall, apparently monitoring an inmate legal visit (the office area is also where the visiting rooms are). I heard this c/o say, «You're a piece of shit,» as he often does when he sees me. I ignored the comment, and apparently so did Mr. Edwards, as expected.

Mr. Shepherd was sitting at the table in the conference area. I sat in the inmate chair, and Mr. Edwards went into his office and returned with the FRP contract which he laid on the table as he sat down across from Shepherd and to my right. He asked, «What's your question about the contract?»

I pulled out my copy of the policy and started to explain what it said about subtracting $450, but Mr. Edwards got up and went into his office again, apparently not even listening to me. So, I turned my attention to Mr. Shepherd, and said very plainly, «Look, I'm not trying to 'demand' anything here. I'm only 'asking' you to comply with policy. And policy says...», and then I read the part that I already explained above.

As I finished, Mr. Edwards returned from his office and asked, «How much are you willing to pay?» as he sat back down in front of the contract still on the table (literally). I said, «According to policy, the most I should pay is $40 for this review period.» Mr. Edwards then insisted that $25 per quarter is the «minimum payment» unless the six-month deposits are under $450 (which I knew was not what the policy said, and was different from what Mr. Shepherd told me in an e-mail the last time – when I had only $400 deposited – he said I had to be «indigent» before I was exempt; another lie; I also knew – from reviewing old six-month review «packages» - that I had been exempt in the past when I had $500 in six months). It was obvious to me that Mr. Edwards and Mr. Shepherd wanted to make me pay something, even if they had to cheat and lie in order to do it. So, I should have cut my losses and agreed to the shake-down then and there, but I gave one more small «push», and said, «How much do you think I should pay from the $40, which is all you're supposed to be 'considering' at this point?»

I knew, and Edwards knew, and I knew that Edwards knew, but I pretended I didn't know, that the computer system did not allow for payments of less than $25 per quarter. I think that's what pissed Mr. Edwards off; and it certainly was the reason he was lying and cheating (i.e. going against policy) in order to keep me from «getting away» without paying my «just debt» (as Mr. Shepherd put it in one of his e-mails to me the last time they lied and cheated in order to «punish» me for not having more than $450 sent to me in six months). And it was also the reason I so foolishly insisted one last time that Mr. Edwards «re-evaluate» my payments according to policy. I was trying to force his hand, like the idiot I am.

So, without warning, Mr. Edwards suddenly signed the contract himself, as «refused», and said: «You refuse then!» I said: «No, I'm not refusing. I'll sign it, just let me! I was only questioning the amount.» But, he said: «Too late. You refuse.» And then he stood up and said: «Let's go, We're done.» I sat still for a moment in disbelief. The last time they lied and cheated through e-mails; this time they were doing it to my face! I really shouldn't have been so surprised, but I actually looked at Shepherd and pleaded, «Really?» as if he might actually take my side. He didn't, of course. In fact, he wrote me up (an «incident report» for disciplinary action) because of what I said next (though I didn't expect or even find out about this «write up» until the lieutenant served it to me a little later --- but, we'll get to that...).

Mr. Edwards was standing behind me now, and said, «Let's go. Now! ... Don't make me pick you up, because I will...» So, I gathered up my papers and said, «You guys are the pieces of shit, not me!» (finally reacting to the comment from the c/o out in the hall earlier, and losing my normal restraint due to being so tired and getting unexpectedly «shafted» to my face). Mr. Edwards replied by saying, «At least I don't like fucking little boys..», or something along those lines. I countered, «Yeah, you probably just like fucking yourself...» (I know, I was being stupid, but I was really tired, and frustrated, so what can I say?)

Then, at the SCU entrance security gate, while we were waiting for a c/o to come open the gate, I remembered the written request I had prepared in my cell earlier and brought with me. I said, «Oh yeah, I have a request for an Informal Resolution already made out,» as I fumbled through my papers with the cuffs on. I found it and pulled it out to hand to Edwards; he grabbed it out of my hand and crumpled it up (I didn't see what he did with it after that, but I assume he threw it away; in any case he didn't process it the way that USP policy said he, as Unit Counselor, was obligated to do), and as he did this he said: «I'm not going to do that.»

The gate opened, and as we proceeded through the unit hub, where numerous c/os were milling about (at least six or seven), I remember replying, «In that case I need a BP-9» (formal request form for Administrative Remedy; the next step after an Informal Resolution is unresolved), and he said, «Not from me, but somebody else will get you one I'm sure.» (As I'm writing what I remember him saying it seems rather benign, but, at the time it felt very hostile; and this next part was definitely hostile, even bordering on verbal sexual assault!) I don't remember either of us saying anything as we ascended the stairs --- the same «blind spot» where another c/o threatened to «rip my head off» if I ever came out for rec (recreation, which we are allowed one hour a day, five days a week, but that I rarely use more than once a week to «re-validate» my MP3-player and check/send institutional electronic messages on the inmate computer system «TRULINCS») on his shift again (I have, and do come out for rec on his shift many times since, but I did avoid doing so for a while, and am always wary of this «blind spot» as a result of the threat).

At the top of the stairs, and I have no idea why Mr. Edwards said this, but he said: «I'll get you a broom and you can stick the handle in your ass.» But, I'm pretty sure why I responded with: «Okay, you do that and I will.» Edwards said: «You probably would.» And I said: «Yes, I would.» And I would to, which is why I said I would; because I'm always trying to be honest to a fault. (But, I also said so because the «conversation» closely mirrored the «conversation» I had with the c/o who threatened to rip my head off on the same stairs that Edwards and I had just traversed; which, of course, was on my mind given the similar circumstances. Only then the c/o threatened to «fuck» me in the ass, to which I responded: «I'd like that.» And he said: «I bet you would.» And I said: «Yes I would.» - again, only striving to be honest about it.)

When I got in my cell and the door closed, Mr. Edwards walked away, but another c/o came shortly and removed the cuffs. I told that c/o: «Tell the lieutenant that I was just assaulted by Mr. Edwards.» I was pretty upset by this point, and the mirror conversation near that «blind spot» made me feel threatened, and I just wanted the abuse to stop! The c/o said he'd tell the lieutenant, and left. I remember yelling at Edwards something about running his mouth like a coward but not doing anything (I really wanted him to do «something» on camera so I could be rid of him once and for all). Then I covered the window on my door (hoping a c/o or other staff would tell me to uncover my window, and wake me up, so I could repeat my request) and laid down to sleep --- I was still very tired after all.

A few minutes later, before I could even fall all the way asleep, I heard a c/o knocking on my door. «Uncover your window!» I think that's what he said, but I was half asleep, and thought it might be the LT. So I got up and uncovered the window, saw the c/o and asked him what he wanted. He said, «Let's go,» holding up a pair of cuffs, «..to see the lieutenant.» (kind of like, «to see the Wizard», since a visit with an LT is almost as rare around here. Apparently, yelling «assault» gets you «through the gate».)

And that's exactly where he took me. He cuffed me behind my back, then took me down the woeful stairs and across the hub to the entrance gate. The first thing I noticed was that the entire unit was suddenly deserted! The only people I saw at all was the c/o escorting me (who seemed non-threatening enough, but I knew looks can be deceiving), and the c/o upstairs at the lock-box who opened my cell door. That was it! No inmates in any of the rec-rooms or law libraries, and no other staff anywhere. I thought, «No witnesses», and actually started bracing myself mentally for the beating I was sure was about to come. I was even more sure when he lead me to the main entrance gate, opened it, then told me to step into a medical holding cell in the entrance foyer. I did as I was told, and (to my mild surprise) he removed my cuffs and said, «The lieutenant is on her way up and will be here shortly.»

I thought, «Yeah, right.» The escorting c/o left, so I sat on the floor with my back against the wall (this was a 7'x7' cell with no utilities or features, just three brick walls and bars on the front). I was thinking I was going to be here a long time (when I was in California they liked putting me in small cells like this for hours at a time, sometimes even days (with a hole in the ground to pee in) in order to «punish» me for things like asking for dental service). But, the same c/o returned shortly with a «BP-9» form and a pen. He said, «The LT wants you to write down what happened on here.» (A «BP-9» is a request for «Administrative Remedy».) At about the same time a friendly-looking young female nurse showed up and I heard her tell the c/o that she had to «examine» me. Only then did I realize that they were treating this as if I had been physically assaulted. So without writing anything on the BP-9 I just told the c/o and nurse that I had only been verbally assaulted, and that I was using the word «assaulted» according to my understanding of the phrase «assault and battery» (where «assault» is a verbal threat, and «battery» is any physical contact applied toward said threat). They both gave me a rhetorical: «Oh?» And then the c/o left again (apparently to inform the lieutenant of the new information). A moment later he returned again and told the nurse she didn't need to do the examination, but for some reason she didn't leave yet either. She remained just outside of the cell in the hall, and witnessed the following:

A group of guards appeared in front of the cell I was in. One of them was the c/o who called me a «piece of shit» earlier in the same hall. As he walked past (I was sitting on the floor again), he looked at me and said: «You fucking piece of shit!» I got up and stood facing the bars (so I could see where he was going, toward the counselor's office area) and said, «I sure wish you'd do something instead of running your mouth like a coward!» He spun around and came back toward the cell while pulling out his cell-keys (large over-sized security keys designed for heavy use) as though he was going to open the cell right there in front of everyone and attack me. The same «friendly» c/o who had escorted me to the holding cell jumped in front of him and said: «No, no, no.» But, I didn't step away from the bars. So, if he really wanted to «do something», he easily could have (the bars were plenty wide enough to throw a jab or two through), but he didn't. I did however make a mental note of the name on his shirt at this point, which he noticed me doing, and as he walked away at the behest of c/o «friendly», he said: «Just put my name on paper!» in a clearly threatening tone.

I knew, that by legal definition, I had once more just been «assaulted». And this time there was a staff witness other than the guards. I asked the nurse incredulously if she realized what she just witnessed. She seemed to indicate that, yes, she had to admit, she had just witnessed a «verbal assault». I then asked her specifically if she'd be willing to be a witness for me, and she said: «Well, I'll make my report...» (referring to her official «examination» report), which didn't promise much, but it was a help. So, I wrote down her name and the c/o's name on the top of the BP-9 (the part you tear off to discard when separating the copies) so I wouldn't forget them.

All the guards left, but the nurse hung out apparently still waiting with me for the lieutenant to show up. I made a little polite conversation, until shortly the LT did indeed appear. An «angel in white»; she was a mature, not unattractive, woman, with a stern but neutral disposition. So far so good, my unconscious mind seemed to say (i.e. I felt more relaxed when she appeared, after having been so riled by the guards and so many implied threats). She said, «You must be Mr. Duncan?» --- «Yes!» --- «Tell me what happened.»

She seemed genuinely willing to listen, so I decided to «back up» a bit, and I told her: «Well, there's a history here you should know first...» I told her that I had been receiving threats and verbal abuse from a few of the guards ever since I arrived, but that most of the guards, and all of the other prisoners, treat me respectfully. It was just a few that went out of their way to make me uncomfortable. Then I told her that Mr. Edwards in particular was a problem because he was the Unit Counselor and I couldn't just avoid having to deal with him the way I could the other guards. She listened, and when i told her about the «Team Review» and how Edwards said I «refused» when I didn't, she said: «That explains the Incident Report...» I said: «What Incident Report?» And she said: «Mr. Shepherd wrote you up for abusive language, a 404.» And I said: «Really? What did he say I said?» And she tactfully said: «I'll get to that in a moment when I serve you the report. In the meantime finish telling me what happened...» (Angel indeed! She actually wants to listen first! What heaven did she come from?!)

She listened to the end of my woeful tale for a few more minutes, and then read me the Incident Report. Mr. Shepherd reported that I said: «You guys are real pieces of shit!» I told her: «Yep, that's about right. I was tired and frustrated so I lost my usual restraint for a second, which is probably what caught Shepherd's attention» (i.e. my guard slipped, so he pounced with paperwork, like the true bureaucrat he is).

As I write this, it is Tuesday, May 12, and I just got back from the «disciplinary» hearing for this 404 infraction. The Unit Manager had to do the hearing because Edwards and Shepherd, who usually do it, were involved in the «incident» themselves. But, it seems Mr. Sample, the new, and inexperienced, Unit Manager was coached before the hearing, as expected, and he sanctioned me 120 days loss of phone privileges. I told him, sincerely; «As long as you really think that's fair, I have no problem with it.» He insisted he thought it was fair, and he probably did, even though it clearly wasn't fair at all! But, Mr. Sample wasn't trying to shaft me, and that alone was, for me, all that mattered. He even listened to my complaints about Mr. Edwards and said he would «talk» to him. Sample is not a good listener, though; like most bureaucrats, he hears only bits and pieces of what you say to him and then pieces that together in his own head to rationalize whatever he thinks in the first place. But, at least he didn't deliberately try to screw me the way Edwards does.]

After she served me the write up and was ready to leave, I asked her for some «advice» (I actually used that word). I said: «What can I do to avoid trouble like this?» I was referring to the assaults and harassment from the guards, but I think she thought I meant the 404 incident. She said: «Just try to be more 'professional' in your conduct.» I said: «Okay, I will.» She then left the unit and I was soon escorted back to my cell «without incident». (Oops, I forgot, at one point the lieutenant told the nurse to complete her examination, and she took some pictures of me with my hands up, to show any marks, for her report. I noticed at the disciplinary hearing today that her report, with pictures, was included in the 404 paperwork. So, it was obvious that the 404 write up was to counter my «assault» claim --- which tells me I'd be wasting my time to file it --- i.e. They've already «dug in».)

[J.D. May 12, 2015]

"Child Porn" Update 2: The Appeal

I got the DHO report on Friday, May 1^st. The DHO (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) practically came right out and said what I said he was thinking; that I am guilty, not for having unauthorized pictures, but for having unauthorized thoughts about otherwise authorized pictures. He wrote that although the pictures are not sexually explicit (or nude), he «believes it was inmate Duncan's intent to possess these photos for the sole purpose of stimulating his sexual desires and to arouse his sexual feelings». (Yes, that is an exact quote!) In other words, even though the pictures are authorized by policy, they are unauthorized for me because I am a sex offender with crimes against children. And he tries to rationalize this bias by using a policy for Federal SOMP institutions (Sex Offender Management Programs). But, he cites the policy out of context and tries to make it say something it doesn't say at all.

After I received his report I immediately put a request to use a «law library» computer, and I looked up the policy he tried using to justify punishing me for having «morally degrading» thoughts. This policy (or, B.O.P. «Program Statement») states very clearly and in several places, that special restrictions (such as not being allowed to have pictures of children) can only be applied at SOMP institutions, and even then only after a risk assessment evaluation by specifically trained SOMP psychology staff.

Needless to say, USP Terre Haute, where I am held prisoner on death row, is not a SOMP institution, and I have never been evaluated for or received notice of any kind of special restrictions.

The DHO conspicuously fails to acknowledge the fact that I provided him with a redacted copy of the letter that accompanied the picture that he says is child pornography (according to a definition that he misconstrues from Merriam-Webster dictionary while completely ignoring the Federally defined legal definition that I provided him a copy of at the hearing, which says clearly that the picture is not even questionably pornographic). The letter contains text (that I highlighted to make clear) which clearly references the pictures that were inclosed, the reason why they were enclosed (unsolicited), and the fact that no effort was made to conceal them in the letter. This letter proves that the pictures were inspected and authorized by the mail-room staff, and were in fact issued to me through regular channels (inmate mail). And yet, the DHO found me guilty of «prohibited act» #305, «Possession of anything not authorized... AND not issued through regular channels!»

I couldn't be anymore NOT GUILTY than if the picture was a publicity photo of the pope handed to me by God Himself! And yet, still the DHO imposed a sanction (punishment) far more severe than most inmates would get for fighting! A #305 isn't even considered a serious infraction, and normally wouldn't warrant more than 30 days loss of a single «privilege». I lost 120 days of several different «privileges»! And, if that weren't bad enough, the DHO fined me for $75, which just happened to be almost exactly how much money I had in my account at the time (i.e. he emptied my account).

It seems obvious that the DHO is going out of his way to severely punish me for having deviant thoughts about an innocent picture. This really shouldn't surprise me too much though, since it is perfectly consistent with the way I have been unfairly treated and systematically persecuted (outside of the law) as a «sex offender» since I was 16 years old and made a 14-year-old boy suck my dick (thinking he'd like it if he tried it, and certainly not thinking I was really hurting anyone). It is the kind of treatment that caused me to serve over 14 years in prison for a crime that the law clearly states should have warranted no more than four or five years. And it was this exact kind of injustice that ultimately fueled my rage and made me feel entitled to a little «justice» of my own after I finally did get out of prison (i.e. it fueled the emotional impetus that compelled me to rape and murder children – and I'm not making an excuse, I'm only stating a plain hard truth).

And, if you think that, «Well, you're in prison for life now, sicko! So it doesn't matter how unfairly they treat you this time!» That's exactly what they said (or thought) about Westley Allan Dodd. And they were right, Dodd never got out of prison again; they hanged him at Walla Walla State Penitentiary. But, I was there, in prison at Walla Walla when they hung him, and I did get out. And how do you think news of Dodd's unfair treatment effected me, and the choice I had to make about whether to «get even» or not? Especially in conjunction with all the unfair treatment I had received personally as a «sex offender»? As they say, what goes around comes around; and you can't stop something from coming around just by killing the person it went around to. The only way to stop it from coming around is to not make it go around!

So, anyway, I wrote my appeal. I spent a week working on it in fact, and even consulted with my attorney during a special legal call about it. I made my appeal as concise and as clear as I could. I cited specific B.O.P. policies and Federal laws that the DHO distorted, ignored, and contradicted in his report. I also provided documented evidence of the facts that proved I had been explicitly authorized to have the picture. But, I left out any mention that the DHO makes a big deal out of the fact that I once mentioned, as an aside to another point, that I claimed to not be aroused by the picture. The only point I was trying to make when I said that was that it doesn't matter if I was aroused or not. If I am aroused by pictures of women's shoes, that doesn't make pictures of women's shoes «pornography». And in fact, I'm not aroused by the picture that was confiscated. Yes, she is a beautiful child, but she is far too «unchildlike» for my preference when it comes to children. I openly admit to being aroused by some pictures of children; but this is not one of them. And again, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't. It only matters whether or not the picture does or doesn't violate some law or B.O.P. policy; and it doesn't in either case! And as another aside from the issue at hand, I do not keep pictures of children that do arouse me in my cell, and never have. This picture was found in a folder I keep with drawing material, and not with any other pictures of children.

I decided to leave any mention of this out of my appeal because I did not want to engage in an argument over whether or not my thoughts are or aren't «authorized». I wanted to keep the argument focused on the fact that nothing I did (or had in my possession) was unauthorized.

After I finished preparing my appeal, and wrote it out as neatly as I could on two sheets of paper, I asked Mr. Shepherd, the Case Manager, to make copies for me (we are required to submit the appeal with four copies), which he does routinely for other prisoners and has done for me in the past. But, this time he refused.

Actually, Shepherd didn't refuse himself. The written request that I handed him asking for the copies was returned to me by Mr. Edwards, with a message written on it in Edward's handwriting that said I must obtain copies from the Education department, and no other information.

The problem was that the appeal has to be mailed and received at the Regional Office (in Kansas City, KS) within 20 days of receiving the DHO report. If Mr. Shepherd made copies for me like he was supposed to then I had plenty of time. But, getting copies from the Education department could take days, even weeks, that I simply didn't have. I suspect Mr. Edwards was well aware of this fact, and was attempting to prevent me from filing my appeal in a timely manner (which the Regional Office is notoriously strict about).

Luckily I had a copy-card (a pre-paid card that allows prisoners to use a copier in the «law library» room) that I had saved for just such an emergency. But, it only had eight copies left on it, and if done properly, the appeal would require about 12 copies (including a copy of the DHO report and evidence being submitted). But, I made it work by reducing several pages to side-by-side copies (two pages on one copy). Thus I managed to get the copies I needed and submit my appeal on time. (As it turned out, the Education department only accepts copy jobs once a week on Wednesdays during their unit «walk through», and on this particular week the «walk through» got cancelled, so there would have been no way for me to get the copies made before the appeal deadline if I had been forced to rely on that route as Mr. Edwards tried to make me do.

So, I got the appeal in the mail on May 14^th, and I later learned that it was received at the Regional Office on May 18^th, rejected on May 20^th because the copies were «illegible» (so they claimed – I could read them fine, and my eyes are bad) and because I'm only allowed (according to them, but not in the policy anywhere, I checked) a one-page attachment, not two. But, I received no notice at all about this rejection until June 3^rd.

So, I hastily re-wrote my appeal and reduced it to its core arguments and to one page (even though the DHO's report that I was trying to argue against was several typed pages long). In the meantime I had purchased a new copy-card, so this time I had no problem at least in making the required copies and re-submitting the «corrected» appeal (which had to be done within 10 days).

I mailed it out again on June 4^th, and received a notice on June 10^th that it had been received (and accepted this time) and that the response is due by July 8^th.

But, that's not the only paperwork I have in the works. Because there is a good chance that I may end up having to take this mess to a Federal judge (i.e. If I cannot resolve it within the B.O.P.), I have also filed a formal complaint against the DHO himself for «unconstitutional conduct» (I) Or, at least I have been attempting to do so since shortly after the DHO hearing. My complaint has been rejected four times already; each time for an even more ridiculous reason.

The first time it was rejected because I had failed to provide a copy of the incident report that I was «appealing», even though I wrote in big letters across the top of the complaint, «THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL!» And this was around the time that Mr. Edwards was preventing me from being able to get copies made, so I re-submitted it with an explanation pointing out that it was not an appeal and therefor the incident report should not be required. I also explained that there was no way for me to obtain a copy of the incident report because my funds had been taken (unlawfully) by the DHO (so I couldn't buy a copy-card) and unit staff refused to make copies for me.

This was rejected again for the same reason. The rejection form said, «You still must submit a copy of the incident report.» It was as though whoever was processing my complaint wasn't even reading what I had written! I still had no way to make the required copy (a single page document that they could easily obtain anytime they wanted from Unit Team staff). And, the only incident report I had was the original copy, without any disposition information (such as the incident report number, which is assigned at the initial UDC hearing), which was given to me on the day that the picture was taken from my cell. So, I attached this to my complaint (without making a copy) and re-submitted it.

It was rejected this third time supposedly because it could only be submitted at the Regional level. «This is not an institutional level complaint» is what the rejection notice claimed. But, I anticipated this from the get-go, so I actually submitted the exact same complaint, by mail, to the Regional Office at the same time that I submitted it the first time at the institution level, and the Regional Office rejected the complaint (as I suspected they would) because there was no institution level attempt to resolve the issue. So, I submitted the complaint for the fourth time with a copy of the Regional rejection notice (I had since received some money on my account and the first thing I bought was some stamps and a copy-card, literally!).

But, even this was rejected for the most ludicrous reason yet. According to the latest rejection notice my complaint is «untimely» because it was initially submitted more than 20 days after I saw the DHO, which the notice claims was on «Feb 13». February 13^th was the date that the picture was found and confiscated. I did not see the DHO until April 15, which is the date that the complaint is about. So, I am re-submitting the complaint now for the fifth time, with a copy of the DHO report (which shows the date of the hearing) and a copy of my initial two-page appeal (as supporting evidence of the DHO's misconduct) along with it.

I'll post the responses I receive to my appeal and my complaint (if it ever gets accepted) in another update. But, for now I'd like to point out that the B.O.P. «Administrative Remedy Program» is clearly dysfunctional. Of the dozens of «remedy requests» I have made over the years only one has ever been accepted at the institutional level (and one more – this latest appeal – at the Regional level). All the rest were rejected (never processed) for reasons just as nonsensical as the ones above. I also kept re-submitting my complaints in the past, but eventually just threw my hands up in the air after I started getting rejection reasons that made no sense at all (like this last one). But, this time I can't just give up, because this injustice is severe enough to threaten my life (this «child porn» accusation could, and would, be used against me in court if I ever have another death sentence trial) and the honor of those I love. So, I will keep fighting, and keep re-submitting my appeals and my complaints, as long as necessary.

  [J.D. June 11, 2015]

 

Notes:

(I) In order to file a «Tort Claim» (law suit) in Federal court the plaintif must establish some kind of misconduct on the part of BO.P. staff. And, I must also prove that I have exhausted all institutional remedies. So, if I just filed a regular appeal, without also filing complaints against the DHO, then the BO.P. would move to have the Tort Claim dismissed since I could not show their misconduct. And, if I had waited until I received the DHO report before I filed the misconduct complaint then it would have been dismissed as «untimely». As I've said before, the System is designed to «protect and to serve» the ones who make the rules so they can break them whenever they want. Only rarely are they prevented from doing so, and when they are they make a big show out of it in order to convince people that they must «follow rules too». But, if you ask anyone who has ever been under the System's thumb, you'll find out the only reason for rules at all is to let the people who make the rules do whatever they want.

"Child Porn" Update 1: The Hearing

Well, it's official, at least as far as the DHO (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) for the U.S. Penitentiary here in Terre Haute is concerned; having «sexually explicit» thoughts is now a punishable offense for «sex offenders». And, as George Orwell so famously predicted, once that happens there is nothing stopping «Big Brother» from punishing whoever it wants. All they have to do is accuse you of a «thought crime» and you are automatically guilty. And so I have been found guilty of «child pornography» in my cell, simply because I am a sex offender, with crimes against children, and have an otherwise perfectly legal picture of a shirtless little girl taken from Vogue magazine's Website (see: "Child Porn" Found In My Cell... Again).

Not only was the picture perfectly legal (by bother B.O.P. policy and Federal Law), but it was actually issued to me in a letter that was opened and inspected by the prison mail room staff. I had no reason to think I wasn't allowed to have it, and even if I did «get off» on the picture (which I don't) then so what? Does «getting off» on a picture of women's shoes for someone with a shoe fetish make such pictures pornographic? It seems the DHO thinks it does. So he found me guilty of «Prohibited Act 205», which according to the official discipline manual is, «Possession of anything not authorized for retention by the inmate, and not issued to him through regular channels.»

But! B.O.P. policy explicitly authorizes inmates to have pictures that comply with very specific and clearly defined limitations, which this picture does; AND, it was issued to me after being inspected through regular channels (i.e. prisoner mail). So, the DHO found me guilty not by facts and policy, but apparently just on «principle»; because he imagined that I «got off» on the picture and thus needed to be punished.

And «punish» he did, severely. Even though a «305» is a low level offense (100 level are the most serious, and 400 level are the least serious) he fined me $75 (I only had $78 in my inmate account, so he obviously just wanted to take all the money from me he could) and took several «privileges» (phone, commissary, visiting, etc...) for 120 days (the most he is allowed to take for even the most serious offenses is 180 days). And this was the first and only time in Federal prison that I've ever been «written up» for anything! I generally follow their rules, and don't get in trouble at all --- not even when they «yank my chain», as they're so obviously doing now.

I can't appeal his decision until I get the official «DHO notice» (paperwork) from the hearing. The hearing was on April 15 (two weeks ago) and the other prisoners on my tier got their «notice» paperwork last week. But, not me. I think maybe the DHO realized too late (i.e. after he found me «guilty» at the hearing) that he couldn't legally find me guilty and then just make up a reason for it later when he filled out the paperwork --- because for once there is no reason! (They know that usually they can always «find a reason» after the fact; but in this case there simply isn't one. The policy and Federal Laws say that the picture is perfectly legal; and it was issued to me. So even if the DHO declares that the picture is somehow a «threat to institution order and security» (a favorite «fall back» that they use for everything from prohibiting dental floss to restricting «R»-rated movies from being shown on the prison movie channel) he can't (at least according to policy) «punish» me for having it, because only the Warden is allowed to make those determinations, and when he does he must let the prisoner know in writing. And since the Warden, nor anyone else, has ever told me I wasn't allowed to have pictures of children, the DHO can't accuse me --- or, find me guilty --- of having something unauthorized ... according to their own policies).

In the meantime, I can't call my mom, or even my attorney (who has agreed to help me appeal this nonsense), who are the only people I ever call regularly. And I can't buy salt or sweetener (to make the food here a little more palatable) or anything else on commissary, not even stamps and paper for letters (because DHO took all of my money). But, worst of all, the DHO has once more created a record of me having «child pornography» in my cell --- something I have NEVER been guilty of, and yet this is the third time (in all my years of living in confinement) that I have been accused of it merely because I am a «sex offender» with «crimes against children» and have a picture of a child with no shirt (in every case a picture that I had never paid special attention to, but even if I had ... so?). And this record «can and will be used against me in a court of law» if I ever end up back in court (and the chances are very good that I will, eventually; especially if my attorneys have their way).

So, if only to expunge the record, I must «fight» this B.S.. And, like I just told my girlfriend in a letter, I resent being forced to play their silly game again! But, if I must play, then I will play hard. I've already filed a complaint to both the Warden and the Regional Director for the «unconstitutional conduct» of the DHO. (2) I don't expect either of them to do anything about it, but by not doing anything they make themselves a part of a «conspiracy to deprive me of my constitutional rights» (1), which is exactly what all this is. (Anyone who reads the Fifth Nail closely might recall that I don't «believe» in legal rights, «constitutional» or otherwise, because I've seen every so-called «right» taken away as soon as it becomes inconvenient for «Big Brother» --- and the present circumstance is a pretty good example of that. So, I'm just playing their silly little game just to get them to leave me alone in my cell while I wait for them to make up their minds about killing me. It's times like this that I often wish they'd just stop playing their games and kill me already --- a sentiment that I've heard shared by many other prisoners here on Federal death row!)

Since there is no fixed limit for how long they can take to give me the official «notice» from the hearing, they can essentially punish anyone they want, for any reason they want, without giving the person a chance to appeal for relief from the punishment until the punishment is over. And by that time it doesn't matter anymore. And the courts won't let a prisoner sue for «emotional distress» or anything else unless there is some kind of physical injury involved. You better believe that the DHO (and all «disciplinary officers» in any prison) know this fact well, which is why (most likely) I haven't received my «notice» yet, and probably won't for a while (assuming the DHO realizes that his decision must be reversed, because if it's not then it becomes a conspiracy, and elevates the seriousness of the «unconstitutional conduct» to a whole new level).

But, maybe the DHO doesn't realize that I can still sue for a «punitive» settlement (i.e. intend to discourage them from ignoring the law and doing whatever they want), or maybe he does realize it and is just hoping I don't realize it before the 20 day time limit for «complaining» runs out. As usual, I'm just guessing the rules as they change them, and just hoping I can convince them to find someone else to «play with» next time.

I'll write another update soon.

[J.D. April 27, 2015]

Notes:

1. The «constitutional» right that I'm referring to here is commonly called the «right to due process» (from the Fifth Amendment), and in particularly, the «right to a fair and impartial hearing», which the courts have recognized for prisoners facing disciplinary proceedings since 1974 (Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539).
2. See "Request For Administrative Remedy" [5NLetters]

Appeal Update

I spoke to my appeal lawyer this week on the phone, and he told me that several unusual things occurred concerning the appeal he is pursuing on my behalf. As I've explained here before, my attorneys filed an appeal without my consent against my Federal death sentence. They claimed that I was not competent enough to waive my appeal. The 9^th Circuit appeal court ordered a «retrospective» competency hearing to determine if I was competent or not. The hearing took place in January 2013 (two years ago), and after about a month of «expert» testimony the judge eventually ruled that I was still competent (affirming his original finding in 2008 when I opted to «waive» the appeal).

My attorneys, of course, appealed this new competency finding in the 9^th Circuit, and last month there was a hearing in San Francisco on their appeal. Ten days after the hearing the three-judge panel issued their ruling: denied. My attorney told me that he had never seen a 9^th Circuit ruling returned that quickly before, ever! (They usually take at least 90 days to rule after a hearing.) He also said that the ruling was unusually, and extremely short (only four pages long) and that it did not address most of the issues he had raised in the appeal. The ruling was also «unpublished» (i.e. Recorded in the Federal law books) which is also very unusual for a «death penalty» case because of their scarcity and importance (i.e. relevance to other «death penalty» cases).

So, a lot of really strange and unusual things seem to be happening all at once (though my attorneys have told me many times that my whole case is strange and unusual, so I'm not too sure about what's different now). My lawyer told me on the phone that he thinks that the current strangeness is some sort of «reflex» reaction to their last ruling for a «retrospective» competency hearing, which was as «unusual» as it gets in appellate court (such a hearing had never, ever, been ordered before, so nobody even knew how it was supposed to work, and they just more or less guessed their way through the whole thing and made up the procedures as they went).

My attorney explained to me that now he will request a «full court» hearing consisting of all twelve 9^th Circuit judges instead of just the three-judge panel. He expects his request to also be quickly denied (such requests are rarely ever granted). And because their ruling explicitly denied my attorney's request to «reinstate» the appeal (i.e. reverse my waiver of appeal), that means that at this point there is no more appeal, and my death sentence is subject to resume on schedule (whatever schedule that might be, I'm not sure). If nothing else happens, I could (in theory?) be «released» (i.e. «executed») by the end of this year. (I say, «in theory?» because nobody seems to know how this all is supposed to work and are just figuring it all out as they go --- at least nobody seems to be able to tell me how it's supposed to work when I ask, and I have asked several times, and the answer I get, if I get any answer at all, usually starts out with, «I'm not sure, but I think...»)

My attorney says the next step is to file a «2255», which is another type of appeal that addresses non-trial issues (I think that's what he said, but I'm not really sure at this point... all I heard for sure was «another type of appeal»). I'm not real clear what a «2255» is, but I think it is another way for my attorneys to request that the original appeal be «reinstated», only this time based on «technical» arguments instead of my «competency», like last time. And, I think that the «technical» argument my attorneys are leaning on is the fact that I eventually gave my attorneys my «consent» to proceed with the appeal, but I did so long after the time-limit for filing an appeal (see: "To: Whom It May Concern"). My attorney says it is extremely unlikely that the appellate court will ultimately not allow the appeal to proceed based on such a «technical reason, especially in a death-penalty case. (He also suspects that at least part of the reason the 9^th Circuit moved so curtly with this most recent ruling is because they too realize the same thing, that these present proceedings are only delaying the eventual outcome, of the appeal being reinstated on technical grounds.

I don't yet know if my attorneys will file the 2255 with or without my involvement; that is, whether or not I'll have to sign anything in order for them to do so. And if I am asked to sign something I'm not sure if my conscience will allow me to do so. It all depends on what exactly I am asked to sign. If I am asked to sign something that essentially says that I «agree» to an appeal proceeding, then I won't be able to sign in good faith and likely won't. But, if it only says that I «consent», then it will be no different than what I have already agreed with in my heart, and in that case I most likely will sign. I don't, of course, see my «life» or «death» as important in this regard at all; only whether or not I remain true to myself, and my principles.

(J.D. April 9, 2015)

"Child Porn" Found In My Cell... Again

A couple of years ago the Federal marshals who were responsible for escorting me to and from court in Boise, Idaho, searched the jail cell I was in and found a document about Jewish child sex laws in the Talmud. Though the document was part of my case (and in an envelope marked clearly as «confidential legal material») and contained nothing «pornographic» at all (it was strictly a discussion of historical law), apparently the title of the document alone was enough for them to confescate it as «child pornography» (see: "Child Porn" Found In My Cell). And now, here in USP Terre Haute, Indiana (Federal «Death Row») the guards have again prejudicially found so-called «child pornography» in my cell, only this time they want to severely discipline me for having it, in order to «teach me a lesson». The only problem is that like last time (and times before when I was in state prison as a «child rapist») the material they found does not even come close to being «child pornography» by any standard, legal or otherwise. It is only «porn» in the minds of those who accuse me, and then only because of what THEY imagine it represents to me, not because of what it IS. And, like all the times before, and regardless of what the material may actually be, a record is being established that indicates (falsely) that I have a habit of collecting child pornography, even while I'm incarcerated. It's a perfect example of a self-fulfilling criminal profile.

In the case at hand, my girlfriend has sent me a few pictures that she printed from the Vogue Paris Website of a beautiful and famous child model named Thylane Blondeau. My girlfriend prints pictures for me in almost every letter of stuff she finds interesting and/or related to what she is discussing in her letter. She normally does not send pictures of children, and I have never asked her to do so. But, in this case the «determined» look on Thylane Blondeau's face caught my girlfriend's interest. So, she sent several images of Blondeau famously dressed, made-up, and posing as an adult for various advertisements. In every photograph Blondeau did indeed have a very stern and «determined» expression. But, none of the images were pornographic, unless you think a shirtless prepubescent girl (with no breasts or even hint thereof) is pornography. It just so happened that one of the images showed Blondeau posing with no shirt, and that was the image that the «correctional staff» here in Terre Haute thought «appears to be child pornography».

You have to remember that this picture was sent to me through the mail. So it was opened and inspected by the mailroom before it was issued to me. I had no reason in the world to think anything was «wrong» with it. In fact, I have seen far more arousing pictures of children in popular magazines like Reader's Digest, or National Geographic. And if I do find a picture of a child particularly arousing then I get rid of it. I don't keep pictures of children in my cell for sexual reasons and I never have (despite my «criminal profile»). So, you can imagine how flabbergasted I was when I found out that once again I was being accused of having child porn in my cell. And it doesn't matter if I am «found guilty» or not, because the «record» has been established and even if somewhere down the line someone officially admits that a «mistake» was made and the picture isn't child pornography after all, this «disposition» will be burried and effectively lost beneath the initial accusation. So, there's nothing I can do now except try to avoid the disciplinary repercussions.

Because of the «seriousness» of my offense, the «Unit Team» referred the incident report (informally called a «shot» around here) to the «DHO» (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) with an explicit recommendation that I lose all my «privileges» in order to «deter any futher violations of this nature». Never mind that this is the first «shot» of any kind I've gotten in Federal prison, and never mind that it was only one picture that according to B.O.P. policy and Federal Law isn't even close to being «pornographic» much less «child pornography». Apparently, the accusation alone is what makes the «offense» so «serious».

I prepared a written two-page statement in my defense that explains why I had no reason to think the image was «unauthorized». Along with this statement I included copies of B.O.P. Policy («Program Statement Inmate Correspondence») and Federal Law (18 USC 2256) that clearly defines «child pornography». I also made some copies of pictures of children in magazines and other materials (books and letters) issued to me through the mailroom that might «appear» to be child pornography (if you consider bare-chested little girls and naked baby butts pornographic) but, of course, are not. My hope here is to establish a pattern of what I have been «authorized» to have in the past (so they can't say I received the picture in the mail by mistake and should have «reported it» or something).

I don't know when I will see the «DHO» for the final disposition. But, my written statement with all the supporting documents has been submitted, so they should have no excuse to find me «guilty» of anything. They may decide that this image of Thylane Blondeau is «inappropriate» for «security» reasons (and even that would be a stretch), but that still doesn't make it «child pornography», nor does it make me a culprit. In fact, the «shot» alone, because of what it implies I am guilty of, is more of a «threat to institutional security» than the picture itself could ever have been. The only threats and abuse I have received since I've been in Federal custody have all come from staff, not other prisoners at all. And a «shot» like this only reinforces prison staff's reasons for threatening and harassing me, regardless of what the picture itself is or isn't.

So, we'll see what happens. I may still be «found guilty» simply because of what I'm on «Death Row» for. But, if I am found guilty it won't be because I am guilty of anything, except being a «sex offender».