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]