«Child Porn» Update: Children Have Breasts?

I got a response back from the B.O.P. Regional Director, Sara M. Revell, on the appeal I filed over being accused of (and harshly punished for) having “child porn” in my cell because a friend sent me a picture from Vogue magazine's website of a famous French child model wearing pants but no shirt in a perfume advertisement. The girl, Thylane Blondeau, is only ten years old, and as flat-chested as any boy her age. But the B.O.P.'s official response to my appeal claims, “The child's breasts do not have to be developed to be considered breasts.” (A direct quote.)

The director also now (out of the blue) claims that I did not receive the pictures in the mail, despite the fact that I have provided a clear copy of the letter I received with the pictures that speficially refers to and describes the pictures enclosed. The reason the director makes this claim (that I didn't get the pictures in the mail) is because according to B.O.P. policy I can't be found guilty if the “contraband” was issued to me through “regular institutional channels”.

So the director is not only redefining “breasts”, but she is also reinventing the facts of the matter in order to justify punishing me for doing nothing wrong except “offending staff's sensibilities” by being a “sex offender who is not authorized to possess sexually suggestive pictures of children”. (Another direct quote from an earlier DHO report concerning this same incident.) Nevermind that B.O.P. policy also does not allow “special restrictions for sex offenders” unless they are at an SOMP institution and have been informed of said restrictions (which I never have).

So now I am forced to appeal, again, to the Central Office in Washington, D.C. The last time I appealed this same incident to the D.C. office I never got a response. Since D.C. is the last chance for “remedy” in the B.O.P., if they deny my appeal I can take my complaint to a judge (which you can't do until after you have exhausted all other “remedies”). So not responding now allows them to respond later, after I file a lawsuit. And if they dismiss the incident then that lawsuit must also be dismissed. So not responding is a tactic they use to avoid trouble in court, and hence get away with violating their own policies if an inmate chooses not to file a new lawsuit (which takes a lot of time and money).

I don't know if they will respond this time or not (they're supposed to respond within two months, but technically they can take as long as they “need”). But if they don't then my attorney has already promised to help me file a lawsuit since this so-called “child porn” can have a devastating effect on any future hearings in my death penalty cases (which is the only reason I am spending so much time and effort on all these appeals).

This is a very typical example of how “The System” maintains the “appearance of justice” while acting arbitrarily and according to its own distorted “sensibilities” (where prepubescent children have breasts, and “sex offenders” can be punished just for being a “sex offender”). If you think, like many do, that I have no call to complain (or otherwise expose the truth) because of my “crimes against children”, then you are like “them”, who see only the small picture in front of them (the one they spend so much time painting to look like “justice”). In the big picture – and in reality – this kind of distortion of the truth leads more directly than those obsessed with the small picture can imagine to the continued manifestation of child murder and rape. No, I will never get out, and hence never rape or kill children again. But, I'm not the only one this kind of “justice” is being “painted” on.

I was in prison once before, remember, and I was treated the same then as I am being treated now. Except, last time I did get out, and I couldn't wait to “set things straight” when I did. And now when the guards here spit in my food, or threaten to kill me if I request recreation time, or punish me for having a picture of a girl with no shirt and calling it “child porn”, I just think to myself, sadly, how the cycle continues, and wonder how many more children must be raped and murdered before it ends.

[J.D. September 26, 2016]

«Child Porn» Redo

The «Incident Report» that they used as an excuse to «punish» me for having so-called «child porn» in my cell (that was really just a picture I received in a letter of a professional child model wearing no shirt for a perfume ad in Vogue magazine) got «returned» to the UDC (Unit Disciplinary Committee) because it was only a «300 level» (not serious) write up, and it was the first write up I ever got at any level. The UDC originally referred it to the DHO (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) so he could impose a more serious sanction than the UDC were allowed to (I ended up losing four months of phone and commissary «privileges», in addition to a $75 «fine», which was all the money I had in my account at the time).

The only real difference is that the UDC is not allowed to impose a monetary fine. So, I got my $75 returned. But, the UDC (Unit staff) still found me «guilty», and additionally claimed in their «reasons for findings» that the child was «nude», which she was not at all (she had pants on, and was much too young to have breasts to «display»). I truly think «they» (B.O.P. staff) were hoping that I'd drop my appeals (and lawsuit) if they let me have the money back. They can't give me back the four months of not being able to call my family (mom and girlfriend) or being able to buy coffee or even salt for my food. So they imposed that as «time served».

Of course I appealed (it's not about the money or the punishment; it's about them ignoring their own rules and regulations and creating a false record --- that says I had «child porn» in my cell --- that can and likely will be used against me in court some day!). In fact, I filed three separate issues of appeal: One, that the UDC falsely claimed the child was nude; Two, that the picture was issued to me in an opened an inspected letter, so I had no reason to think I was not allowed to have it; and Three, that the picture does not in fact violate any rules of policies (or laws, needless to say).

But, the second and third issues were not accepted on appeal. Only the first issue was processed, and eventually (nonsensically) denied (of course). The other issues, which are directly supported by B.O.P. policies, were simply ignored. Apparently, even the forms I submitted for these issues were just discarded, and not even officially «rejected» or anything.

So now technically I can't even appeal these other issues to the Regional Office level because policy says I can only further appeal issues that are in the original appeal! So they seem to be trying to block my appeal (in much the same way they did the first time when I tried to appeal the original DHO decision). All I can, and will, do is file a complaint to the Regional Office against the institution for (again) refusing to process my appeals, and hope the Regional Office eventually forces them to process all the issues of my appeal the way they did last time. I really don't care whether they grant or deny my appeals based on the issues I raised, since I can't be «punished» any more than I already have. But, I need some sort of response one way or another for the lawsuit that my attorney is helping me file for violating my (so-called) «due process» rights --- which, even after they have been watered down by the courts for prison discipline, are supposed to keep prison staff from arbitrarily punishing me like this, just because I'm a «sex offender» («special restrictions can be applied for «sex offenders», but only at special «SOMP» (Sex Offender Management Program) institutions, and only after the «offender» is told what the «special restrictions» are; I was never told about any special restrictions on me or my mail, before or since this «incident»).

So, the ordeal of my appeals being all over again (I must «exhaust» all institutional «remedies» and appeals before I can go to a Federal judge with a lawsuit); such we call «the workings of justice».

[J.D. July 8, 2016]

So Much For Security (Guard and Inmate Stabbed on Death Row)

On Thursday, February 4, 2016, shortly after I had met with the Regional B.O.P. investigator about being denied formal redress (see "Child Porn" Saga Continues), a guard and the prisoner he was escorting in handcuffs, were both attacked and stabbed by a prisoner who was «accidently» let out of his cell unrestrained, here on death row. The unit was consequently locked down, and now rumor has it that changes on how this unit is run are coming down the «pipe» from the Regional office (perhaps because there was an investigator here from Regional when the «incident» happened). Several guards have already been removed from this unit (SCU, a.k.a. «death row»), and more rumors say the guard who «acciently» opened the wrong cell door was fired.

The big problem with this whole «incident» should be fairly obvious. The attack happened on the range (hallway of cells) directly below the one where I am celled, so I'm not personally familiar with the prisoners down there, though the prisoner who got stabbed is a «co-defendant» (crime partner of one of the prisoners on my range who I am familiar with (and get along with). The «word» is that the prisoner who got stabbed had complained several times about the other prisoner threatening him (i.e. he is a «rat»). So, the odds that the other prisoner's door got opened by «accident» just as the rat was being escorted past, is slim; and the fact that the attacked appeared to be ready for the «accident» to happen, with home-made knife (shank) in hand, ready to attack as soon when his door opened, is a pretty good indication that he wasn't the only one who wanted to hurt the rat.

The guard who «accidentally» opened the wrong door, and more than likely the guard who ended up getting stabbed while escorting the rat, had to be in on the attack. They probably told the prisoner to be ready for his door to open «accidetally» (this kind of «information exchange» happens often between guards and the prisoners they are «familiar» with – all sorts of rules are in place that are meant to prevent it, but it is one of those «human nature» things that no amount of rules or laws will ever stop). One of the guards could have simply whispered in the prisoner's cell, «Hey, if your door opens accidentally when the rat comes back from rec, don't do anything 'stupid'», which of course means, «Be ready».

The guards probably thought they were being «cool», and having some «fun» at the same time (a lot of guards thrive on violence even more than the prisoners – so they create situations like this so they can «do their job», and look like heroes, I suppose). But, I doubt if they expeted their patsy to come out of the cell armed with a shank! So the whole thing backfired, and even got the guard who was escorting the rat stabbed as he tried to «restrain» the attacker (this guard may or may not have been «in» on the «fun» - but the guard who «accidentally» opened the wrong door was definitely «in» on it).

So now changes are coming. The «rules» have failed once again (as they always do eventually), so now more rules will have to be made (the rulemakers – i.e. pharisees – never seem to realize that the rules never actually «fail», they just never work in the first place, and only appear to work at all by sheer chance, until the next «incident» occurs and more rules «need» to be made). The «up shot» is that all the other prisoners on death row will now loose more «privileges» and suffer more restrictions (i.e. «security measures») as a result (the new «rules» invariably only end up «punishing» the prisoners who had nothing to do with what happened). They've already assigned two fulltime lieutenants (one for day shift and one for swing) to the SCU, which is a small unit that never needed its own Lts before now. So, unless the new Lts plan on twiddling their thumbs all day and getting paid for it, they're most likely going to create some excitement of their own, to make themselves feel like «heroes» (i.e. useful) too. And that's not good for the prisoners... it never is. (As I heard the rat's co-defendant say – who himself is a solid convict as far as I'm concerned - «Shit rolls downhill, and we're at the bottom of the hill!»)

[J.D. February 17, 2016]

P.S. It may be interesting to note that the SCU (death row) unit is considered the most «secure» unit in a Federal «Super Max» (Maximum Security) prison. If government «officials» can't keep even one small unit secure in prison, then how can they keep the nation secure? They can't, never could, never will, but will always pretend they can, and take trillions of dollars to maintain their facade, and propaganda. «They» are the ones paid to be «heroes». (Paying someone to be a hero is like paying someone to be your lover; it's just a form of prostitution.)

Disclaimer: It should be obvious, I hope, that much of the information I've provided here is hearsay and not reliable. It is, however, the best information I have at this time, considerating that the B.O.P. is not in the habit of publishing news reports when «incidents» like this happen (and when they do ultimately decide to release information for public consumption, you can be sure it is not the whole story – so I hope I'll be excused for attempting to provide another «version» of the truth).

«Truth is singular. Its 'versions' are mistruths.' --- Fabricant, Somni 451, "Cloud Atlas"

«Child Porn» Saga Continues

Last year I was «disciplined» harshly, and fined $75, because of a picture of a prepubescent French model from Vogue magazine that I received in an opened and inspected letter through the regular inmate mail. Because she was shirtless, the guard who wrote me up thought it was «child porn», which it was not by any legal definition or prison policy.

I was consequently found guilty for having «unauthorized items» (Prison rule #305) and sanctioned to a loss of several «privileges» for four months. The DHO (Disciplinary Hearing Officer) also took all the money I had in my inmate account at the time as well.

In the DHO's official report he side-stepped the hard evidence (i.e. that the picture was issued to me in an inspected letter by staff, and did not violate any laws or prison privileges) and justified his guilty verdict by claiming special rules applied to me because I am a «sex offender» with crimes against children.

I, of course, appealed his decision, but even before I filed my appeal, I submitted an official complaint against the DHO for failing to comply with prison policy and Federal laws, and deliberately violating my (so-called) constitutional right to a «fair and impartial» hearing. My complaint was rejected by the prison administration seven times for false reasons. Each time I re-submitted my complaint with documented evidence that refuted the supposed reason it had been rejected.

I suspet that someone in administration was either protecting the DHO from having his conduct officially investigated, or they were protecting the warden, whose job it was to respond to the complaint, from a possible law suit (if he supported the DHO's decision to find me guilty, then it becomes a conspiracy to deny my constitutional rights, and the warden would be the prime conspirator). So, according to policy, I submitted a complaint to the Regional B.O.P. office, not against the DHO, but against the prison staff who rejected my complaint without a legitimate reason.

I submitted this «rejection appeal» with copies of all the documentation that showed my original complaint was submitted properly seven times over and was excessively clear in nature. I even provided a typed two-page summary that listed every submission, rejection, and other documented attempts to have my complaint heard (even asking the warden in person during his «walk-through»). The Regional office responded by saying it would «investigate», but it didn't say what it would investigate, nor when I should expect a response from the investigation. (As it turns out, inmates are never appraised of the results of such «investigations», unless they sue and get a court ordered subpoena; so there is no way for prisoners to have their complaint satisfied unless they sue, and they can't sue until they've «exhausted all attempts to have the complaint resolved at the institutional level»: Go figure).

Because my original complaint against the DHO was still not being addressed, and prison policy has strict time limits (20 to 30 days) for filing complaints (after which they are rejected automatically as «untimely»), I was forced to submit my «rjection appeal» to the Central B.O.P. office in Washington D.C.. Even this submission was rejected twice, before finally being «accepted» (for consideration), even though it too was properly submitted each time (the third time i submitted it with a three-page letter explaining to THEM what THEIR policies said that made the submission proper in all regards). The Central office accepted the rejection appeal, AND extended the time they had to respond, on the same day. The last time I submitted an appeal to the Central office (the actual disciplinary appeal concerning the same «child porn» B.S.) they did the same thing (accept and extend the response time on the same day) and then they never responded at all after the extended response date lapsed (that was six months ago). (P.S. I submitted the disciplinary appeal, and the complaint against the DHO's «unconstitutional conduct» separately on the advice of my lawyer, in order to prevent the B.O.P. lawyers from claiming that my disciplinary appeal did not address the issue of the DHO's «unconstitutional conduct». In other words, my lawyer and I are making double sure that the B.O.P. has every opportunity to «resolve the issue» before we take the case to a Federal judge, so the B.O.P. can't claim they never had a chance to «address the problem», i.e. legal gobbledegook.)

In the meantime, last week (the same day that a guard and a prisoner both got stabbed by another prisoner here on death row, in fact, I was escorted back to my cell just moments before the stabbing occured – see "So Much For Security"), an investigator from the Regional office finally did show up and asked me about all those rejection notices from the prison concerning my original complaint against the DHO. I was told the guard who came to get me for the interview that «Unit Team» wanted to see me. Since I'm not scheduled to see «Unit Team» for at least two more months, I knew something was amiss. So I explicitly asked what for, so I could bring any paperwork I needed with me (if I had known the truth, that it was an investigator from the Regional office, then I could have brought a whole stack of paperwork that documented in detail all my efforts to have my complaint heard, and all my evidence against the DHO). The guard told me he didn't know (another lie). So I put my hands through the slot in my door to let him cuff me (behind my back) and then they opened the door and escorted me to the attorney visiting room (which I had never been in or even seen before) where the investigator was waiting for me.

I didn't catch his name, but he seemed courteous and professional, which was a good sign. He also appeared to be at least cursorily familiar with not only the paperwork I submitted (which he had with him), but also other aspects of the case (such as the DHO's report, which I had not submitted to the Regional office because it was not directly relevant to the reason for the unjustified rejections). We spoke for over an hour as he very meticulously went over every rejection and my responses, using the two-page summary I submitted as a guideline.

He proposed a few different times that it appeared as though the clerk who was responsible for processing my complaints, and who ultimately rejected it seven times, must have been confused since it was so atypical. And, each time he did so I was careful to respectfully conceed his point, saying that yes, I thought the same thing even, but then how did the clerk miss all the bold lettering, highlighted texts, and direct policy quotes that I provided over and over in each response. I told the investigator that there «appeared» to be only two explanations; either the clerk was deliberately rejecting the complaint for invented reasons, or she was incompetent in her job. The investigator actually opened his mouth to retort my observation, but then nothing came out. Judging by the way his eyes flickered back and forth at this moment it appeared as though he tried to, but couldn't, come up with an argument against that one.

In the end, he told me that I would not be appraised of the outcome of his «investigation»; but, if the warden contacted me in regards to my complaint against the DHO, then I would at least know the result. I got the impression that that was what he was thinking should happen (i.e. he seemed to concur that all the facts I had presented in my case were consistent and correct, which meant my original complaint against the DHO had in truth been unfairly rejected, for whatever reason). In fact, by the end of the interview we had become so cordial that I even told him about my plans to propose marriage to my girlfriend; news that he seemed to respectfully appreciate (I have since proposed, and she said, «Yes!»). He even asked a few polite questions about the engagement ring, and how we planned to get married, before he got up and signaled the guard waiting outside in the hall to take me back to my cell.

I truly appreciated the way the interview ended on such an unofficial and cordial note. I thanked him for his time and returned to my cell.

[J.D. February 15, 2016]