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]

Typical Shit

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

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

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

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

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

[J.D. Dec 10, 2015]

Supreme Court Appeal

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

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

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

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

[J.D. 10-20-2015]

Revisiting "Pieces of Shit"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

And today they still are.

[J.D. August 8, 2015]

"Child Porn" Update 3: Regional Response

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

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

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

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

[J.D. July 23, 2015]

P.S.:

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

I am requesting an informal resolution in the following matter:

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

National Geographic - August 2015, page 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

To which I replied on August 31, 2015:

Thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

[J.D. 9-3-2015] 

Censored Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J.D. June 25, 2015]