"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».

FRP: Confusion and Lies

A couple of months ago I reported that after some unnecessarily convulted discussions with the SCU (death row) “case manager” I had managed to negotiate an understanding and agreement that would get me off of “FRP refuse” status so I could spend more than $25 a month on commissary. Well, it seems that there never was any agreement, or understanding, as far as the “case manager” was concerned.

The agreement that I thought we were clear about was that I would pay $25 out of the money that a friend sent me as a gift (so I can buy things like stamps, coffee, hygiene items, and maybe a little candy once in a while, but mostly to pay for phone calls, which cost $3.20 for 15 minutes) into the FRP fund (which I asked several times for information about what this 'fund' is used for but never received an answer except, “it is part of your court ordered financial obligation”, which is as much a non-answer to my question as you can get). I had agreed to pay the $25 even though according to B.O.P. Policies --- which I read carefully --- I should have been “FRP exempt” because I received less than $450 in the previous six month period. I tend to not argue with how staff here choose to “interpret” the policies, since they have already established their ability to ignore policies when they choose by simply replying nonsensically to any written requestion for compliance (see: What's Justice Got To Do With It?). 

So, after I asked my friend to send some money to pay my “court ordered fine”, I sent an e-mail (I'm allowed to send e-mails to staff, but not to my lawyers or anyone outside of the prison because I am a “sex offender”) to the “case manager” to let him know the money had been posted on my account so he could arrange for the $25 FRP withdrawal per our agreement.

I even attempted to accept responsibility for the misunderstanding we had prior to our agreement, figuring as I usually do that it takes two people for a misunderstanding to happen. I had genuinely hoped the issue was finally going to be resolved by my paying the $25 FRP fine.

But, Mr. Shepherd, the “case manager” had other ideas. He replied, rather harshly, that no agreement had been reached, and in fact I had “refused to sign any new agreement”. Of course no “new agreement” was ever presented for me to sign when I spoke with him at my cell door for the “Unit Team” hearing. He was plainly lying in order to cover up the fact that no new “FRP contract” had been drafted or offered. If one had been drafted, which the computer system can do automatically, then I would have been assigned “FRP exempt” status because of my low funds, which were clearly shown to be well below the “FRP participation” level (i.e. below $450 for six months). So, according to Mr. Shepherd, I “refused to sign” an agreement that would have made me “FRP exempt” and I wouldn't have had to pay the $25, which I had verbally agreed to pay, as I clearly indicated in this first e-mail to Shepherd concerning the matter.

 

It was instantly clear to me what was happening, but I didn't want to believe it. I thought Shepherd was the one “Unit Team” staff on death row that had any integrity at all about doing his job. I thought he might condone the lies and manipulative behavior of other staff (which is a defacto prerequisite of prison employment), but I never thought he'd do it himself. So, I reasoned that maybe he just mistakenly got me confused with another prisoner or something. To find out I sent him another e-mail, that very planly and explicitly spelled out the verbal agreement and understanding that we had come to at the “Unit Team” hearing (at my cell door a couple of weeks prior), and specifically asserted that I had not refused to sign anything.

And, I again attempted to accept my part of the responsibility for our misunderstanding in this e-mail as well, hoping beyond hope that Shepherd would realize that I was not trying to “get one over on him”, so he would be more willing to admit and accept responsibility for his error (something I knew almost never happens amongst any prison staff because it's simpler and more prudent to push their mistakes off onto the prisoners).

Shepherd again denied that any agreement was reached, this time in a lengthy reply that was clearly to me meant to distract from his primary lie (i.e. that he offered me a new contract at the celldor “Unit Team” and that I had refused to sign it) by providing a lot of superfluous and irrelevant information, including a lot of direct and implied accusations of wrong doing on my part (standard, “blame the inmate” rhetoric), and misrepresentations of B.O.P. Policies (he claims that I must be “indigent” in order to be “FRP exempt”, but that's not what the policy says at all).

I was sadly disappointed in Mr. Shepherd. He just proved once more that prison staff, even the most benign staff, are no more than a bunch of criminals themselves. I knew there was no point in trying to argue (or request an “Administrative Remedy” since “Unit Team” control that entire process also). So I just sent him one last e-mail in order to express my disappointment and hopefully “guilt him” a little into thinking about the broader consequences of his deceit (i.e. undermining all prisoner “respect for authority” to start with).

  

I didn't bother checking to see what his reply to this last e-mail was until a couple of weeks later, when it was time to “revalidate” my MP3-player. I pretty much knew exactly what he would say (I even told my attorney what his final reply would be a few days later on the phone). He replied exactly as I expected; more denials and accusations. Staff generally never let the prisoner have the last word about anything, because to do so would create the appearance that they aren't the one in control --- which is something that seems to concern them greatly (i.e. maintaining the appearance of control).

[J.D. January 7, 2015]

155 Pounds

   When I lived in Fargo, North Dakota, from the time I was released from prison in Washington state in 2000, to the time I was on my my «rampage against society» in 2005. I weighed between 180 and 185 pounds. I weighed 185 pounds precisely, at the time of my arrest in Idaho, on July 2, 2005. Today I weight 155 pounds, according to the digital scale the medical staff let me use this morning.

   For some reason I've lost eight pounds just in the last three months alone (since the last time I weighed myself). I'm not too concerned yet, since my appetite seems okay, and when I was in prison in the early 1990s I only weighed about 135 pounds at the same height (six-one). I was a skeleton then, now I'm just really skinny.

   This weight loss might be a good thing. I don't get as much exercise as I did while I was living in Fargo, where I was very active (biking, skiing, running, scuba diving, swimming, and of course lots of vigorous sex, amongst other things), so dropping weight is actually probably a healthy thing to do (not as healthy as exercising, but much healthier than gaining weight). But, I haven't been making any conscious effort to loose wieght, other than simply choosing to go hungry rather than eat food I don't like.

   More and more lately it seems I have been going hungry because the food they give me here is frequently unappetizing to put it politely. I'm just happy that we still actually do get something I like often enough that I haven't lost even more weight. Though apparently I've been put off from eating more and more lately, and the only reason I can think of is that the food quality has been getting worse overall. I'm not much of a food person to being with; eating is often a chore for me, even when I can have anything I like. But, what I like is lots of fresh vegetables, fruit, and well cooked protein. Sugar and starch is okay, but never a first choice for me (I was never a Krispy Kreeme fan). In Fargo I enjoyed (and miss) snacking on raw broccoli, caulifower, and carrots with a salad dressing dip (usuallt blue cheese or ranch). My favorite entrees at home were hamburger helper (with extra meat and beans added the way I liked) or tuna sandwiches made with Miracle Whip and sweet pickles on sourdough bread.

   Here, though, I'm lucky to get any fresh vegetables at all, and the so-called fresh fruit that we get once or twice a day is obviously stuff that could never be sold in an American supermarket. The oranges have no flavor and the apples are mushy and bruised. The fruit's not like that all the time, but often enough so that when it's not like that I get very happy and feel «lucky» for that day.

   The entrees they serve are hit or miss, more miss than hit. I don't like peppers (or anythng with capsaicin in it) or «spicy» food in general, and honestly don't understand how anyone can (it literally makes me sick). So when the cooks here get it in their mind to play chef (something you're not supposed to do as an institutional cook when you are cooking for a large group and not individual tastes) and starts spicing up the food (usually with lots of pepper and/or peppers) I get extremely frustrated. I can't tell you the number of times I'll be eagerly waiting for the fod trays to arrive only to discover that the otherwise perfectly good beans have been ruined with pepper. They sell pepper here on commissary, so if a prisoner likes destroying their tastebuds that way they can do so all they want. I myself can't eat it, and usually end up going hungry again, unless I have saved some rice or something from another meal which I do when I can.

   So, I blame the food here for my wieght loss; or, I should say, I CREDIT the food here for it, since it's not really a bad thing. If you think I'm complaining then you haven't read this correctly at all. I'm simply trying to relay my experience, as always, for whatever it might be worth.