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]