Attention: open in a new window. E-mail

INVESTIGATIVE FREELANCE REPORTER WITH THE AMERICAN’S BULLETIN


ROLAND HINKSON
100 8th Avenue
PO Box 5
Ouray, Colorado 81427
Phone (970) 325-4522
Fax (970) 325-7262
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Senator Wayne Allard
c/o Brian McCain
August 8, 2008

Dear Senator Allard:

Recently, I spoke to your assistants, Mr. McCain and Mr. Merritt regarding law violations amounting to abuse of inmates by federal employees at ADMAX, Florence, CO, USBOP. Warden Wiley, of the U.S. Penitentiary has been contacted, but has been unable to correct the abuse of inmate rights which has now proven to be an ongoing stream of misconduct that needs to be investigated and corrected.

I am an investigative reporter for the American’s Bulletin and other publications as well as being a guest on talk shows regarding individual rights. My son, David R. Hinkson, was fraudulently convicted of solicitation of murder of three federal officials (which solicitation never occurred)*all the so called evidence was manufactured by a man that has since been convicted of defrauding the V.A. of over $100,000 in benefits using the same false evidence. This man’s fraud was so pathetically flawed that the forged DD-214 he used to claim awards from the Korean War era, showed medals that were not created until the 1990s. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed David’s 2005 conviction, however, because of a petition by the Justice Department for en banc review, he continues to sit in ADMAX solitary confinement. The merits of David’s case are not of concern here, but only magnify the injustice of the abuse at ADMAX.

I am seeking your aid in correcting the willful violation of USBOP rules and regulations by the guards at ADMAX which include the denial of right to legal counsel regarding pending proceedings and denial of right to reasonable dental care (David has had an abscessed tooth for nearly three months which has been disregarded). A summary of these matters is attached, however, the extension of your good offices in addressing these problems, heretofore swept under the rug, is truly necessary and will affect other constituents as well.

Sincerely,
Roland Hinkson

Attachments: Letters to ADMAX Warden Ron Wiley & Memorandum to Bureau of Prisons

(INVESTIGATIVE FREELANCE REPORTER WITH THE AMERICAN’S BULLETIN)

ROLAND HINKSON
100 8th Avenue
PO Box 5
Ouray, Colorado 81427
Phone (970) 325-4522
Fax (970) 325-7262
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

February 7, 2008

Warden Ron Wiley
USP Florence ADMAX
U.S. Penitentiary
PO Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226

Dear Warden Wiley:

It has come to my attention that certain personnel at ADX are in violation of the provisions of the LEGAL RESOURCE GUIDE TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (2008) concerning treatment of inmates. I am not writing to you to register a grievance as an informal or formal complaint. Nor am I seeking a review by the “Bureau of Prisons Administrator Remedy Program.” However, I am involved in an investigation of abuses of inmates at Federal penal institutions. Since I have a son who is incarcerated at ADX under BOP’s custody and care, and since you have the responsibility as custodian of ADX I am beginning my focus there. I also commend the competence of some personnel I’ve met at ADX.

Yet, I understand that staff may take disciplinary measures against inmates if they pose a disturbance to the safe and orderly management of a facility. Of course, violations carry “sanctions corresponding to the severity of the offense.” By the same token, rules and regulations must be consistent with Statutory Law. If known that unlawful abuses by staff do occur within the confines of prison walls, the public may likely become incensed. As you know, for authorities to exacerbate such abuses by inflicting retaliatory or capricious disciplinary actions against an inmate “is not permitted under any circumstance.”

My familiarity with the BOP Guide helps me to be of service to you. I assume that you wish to carry out your responsibilities in an honorable manner and that you would appreciate any valid input that is offered. My intent is to identify and expose those who misunderstand their stewardship. The public is entitled to know the names and behavior of each violator. My allegiance is to my readers not to any agency of the Government.

I plan to visit my son next Thursday or Friday (pending weather conditions) but will make myself available at your convenience most any time or place. I’m hopeful that we may spend a short time together and that such a meeting will be mutually beneficial. Please accept my concerns as intended.

Sincerely yours,
Roland Hinkson

(INVESTIGATIVE FREELANCE REPORTER WITH THE AMERICAN’S BULLETIN)

ROLAND HINKSON
100 8th Avenue
PO Box 5
Ouray, Colorado 81427
Phone (970) 325-4522
Fax (970) 325-7262
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

July 21, 2008

Warden Ron Wiley
USP Florence ADMAX
U.S. Penitentiary
PO Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226

Dear Warden Wiley:

Unfortunately, certain members of your staff have failed to comprehend the significance of their role as agents under your supervision. My last letter to you, dated February 7, 2008 (attached herewith) asked for your support in making corrections for abuses. Apparently you did instruct your staff to address the abuses by guards as mentioned in the attached letter of February 7th.

I didn’t make an issue about the abusers. Now I want to tell you what has happened. Again, this is not a formal complaint by asking for a hearing within the system. I’m now publishing a story for all peoples inside and outside the U.S. It may be that only a few people care what happens to the poor souls who are put in solitary confinement and treated with contempt by a few cowardly guards The abused have no spokesmen.

In the past I have chosen to withhold publishing negatives about ADX because of my believe that most of the guards are decent, honorable employees who want only to do their jobs by following the Regulations as published in the LEGAL RESOURCE GUIDE TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (2008).

My intent is to identify and expose those who misunderstand their stewardship. What I did not anticipate was guards or authorities being outright liars. To lie reveals lack of character. A person placed in charge of others needs to be up front and honest, and there is no justification for lying.

On Friday at 1:10 p.m. July 18, 2009, David Hinkson’s attorney, Wes Hoyt, called me saying he had been waiting for 40 minutes to see his client, David (08795-023). He had spoken to CO Quintina (sp) and was told that all the bays were full. Mr. Hoyt called me suggesting I call Officer Sprawl to see if there was anyway he could come into an attorney booth or in the alternative to one of the 8 social booths. I had told Mr. Hoyt about an earlier complaint when I was informed by the supervising lieutenant on duty that there is no justification for any staff member to delay a visitor for over 30 minutes unless there’s an emergency. In the past I have myself reminded staff of this declaration, and have gotten hasty results.

At 1:17 p.m. I called asking to speak to Officer Sprawl or Warden Wiley. Mr. Sprawl was cordial and cooperative; he said he’ll try to get Mr. Hoyt in and that he was working on it even as we spoke. So “Thanks for your efforts.”

Shortly after, Mr. Hoyt, who was a former assistant district attorney, was taken into the cell area. His first observation was that Attorney Booth #12 had no one in it during the remaining hour he was there, and after consulting with other attorneys he learned that it never had been occupied. No one had left, and no one came in. Attorney Hoyt had emailed and faxed a request to visit David on Tuesday, July 15th. Officer Sprawl told me that an attorney needs to notify ADX 3 or 4 days before coming.

So I told Mr. Sprawl that he could then take one of our family social visits. Officer Sprawl then told me that all 8 of the social booths were full. They did, in fact, get him in for an hour visit. At 3:10 p.m. Mr. Hoyt called me telling me that all 8 of the social bays had been empty.

At 3:25 p.m. I called ADX and asked to speak to Officer Sprawl. “Why did you lie to me,” I asked. He told me that he had been informed that that all the bays/booths were full. “Who told you that?” “Officer Haygood,” he said. “I’ll accept that. But then you were being lied to by Haygood” I tend to believe that Officer Sprawl was telling the truth; I was angry, yet he was quite cool. Haygood in the past has demonstrated inappropriate behavior toward both David and his attorney, Mr. Hoyt. Possibly he needs to be reminded of the LEGAL RESOURCE GUIDE.

What raised my ire was the fact that David had notified the ADX authorities two and a half months ago about a tooth hurting him. When his face swelled up and he was agonizing in pain, Medical at the Facility gave him a limited amount of penicillin. The tooth was not addressed. I asked Officer Sprawl to put me through to the Medical Department. He started to give me a post office box number. I asked him if someone were hit by a car, would you send a letter for assistance? I said I don’t want help in 3 months or even 3 hours but now! So he gave me the ADX telephone number (719) 784-9464. I let it ring for 30 times before it shut off and the for another 20 rings before I hung up.

The COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 05-30303 Plaintiff-Appellee D.C. CR-04-00127-RCT DAVID ROLAND HINKSON by Majority Opinion has REVERSED AND REMANDED David’s case. Although it is highly unlikely that David Hinkson will remain in the custody of ADX for much longer, all prisoners under your custody should be treated under the guidelines of the stated objective of the Bureau of Prisons.

The following is what the BOP wants the public to believe:

The Bureau of Prisons provides services and programs to address inmate needs, structure use of leisure, and facilitate the successful reintegration of inmates into society. Each Bureau facility offers a set of programs and services that vary based on the characteristics and needs of its specific inmate population.

Upon arrival at a new institution, an inmate is interviewed and screened by staff from the case management, medical, and mental health units. Later, an inmate is assigned to the Admission and Orientation (A&O) Program, where he or she receives a formal orientation to the programs, services, policies, and procedures of that facility. This program provides an introduction to all aspects of the institution.

Research has conclusively demonstrated that participation in a variety of programs that teach marketable skills helps to reduce recidivism. Additionally, institution misconduct can be significantly reduced through programs that emphasize personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance of others. Accordingly, the BOP offers a wide variety of program opportunities for inmates that teach pro-social values and life skills. These programs include vocational training, the Life Connections Program, parenting programs, and mock job fairs.

With regards to the attached MEMORANDUM (dated July 21, 2008), I question if ADX intends to comply with the Guidelines and unequivocal demands as stated.

Sincerely,
Roland Hinkson


MEMORANDUM
TO: The American Bureau of Prisons and Worldwide Media
FROM: Roland Hinkson
SUBJECT: Abuses of Inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at ADX, Florence, Colorado.
DATE: July 21, 2008

I–FACTS:

A – Responsibilities and History: As stated in the 2008 "Introduction" to the Legal Resource Guide to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is an agency of the Department of Justice. The Bureau was established "to provide more progressive and humane care of federal inmates…. BOP is responsible for the custody and care of sentenced inmates." The Bureau acknowledges that it "retains exclusive discretion to assign or to transfer any prisoner to any facility." The Bureau also acknowledges that "Every effort is made to fulfill the court’s [judge’s] request" for housing the inmate within a specific institution, geographic area, (as specified in the Judgment and Commitment Order). Conflict with BOP policy and sound correctional management may, however, prevent compliance.

The declared "Mission" statement of the Bureau of Prisons is to protect society by confining offenders … [in[ facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient … secure, and provides … self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders to become law abiding citizens.”

After an inmate is designated to an institution, institution staff are responsible for the security and custody [of the inmate].… " The Bureau helps reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism." "The Bureau of Prisons provides services and programs to address inmate needs, structured use of leisure and facilitate successful reintegration of inmates into society."

The Guide further contends that "misconduct can be significantly reduced through programs that emphasize personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance of others. Accordingly, the BOP offers a wide variety of program opportunities for inmates that teach pro-social values and life skills." The Bureau proclaims that there is a variety of programs for self-improvement that are offered (including recreational and hobby craft programs).

BOP also asserts that it affords an inmate reasonable access to legal materials; that all federal prisons maintain inmate law libraries , that an inmate may purchase legal materials outside the prison and that inmates are permitted a reasonable amount of time to conduct their own legal research and to prepare legal documents …. "Inmates are permitted to subscribe to or receive by mail publications without prior approval"–with exceptions.

However, the Department of Justice and the Congress recognize that any inmate misconduct can pose problems to the safe administration of penal institutions. Therefore the prison administrators are allowed to exercise discretion, based on security concerns, to discipline inmates. "Violations of prohibited acts carries sanctions corresponding to the severity of the events. … Sanctions may include segregation, loss of good time, credits, loss of privileges and verbal warnings. But "retaliatory and capricious disciplinary actions is not permitted under any circumstances.”

B – Inmate Rights: In compliance with the minimum procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the BOP disciplinary process requires that staff provide the inmate with a written copy of the charges, that the inmate is entitled to be present during the initial hearing …, the "inmate is entitled to make a statement, to present documentary evidence on his or her own behalf and to have a staff representative at the hearing …." Further, "Inmates may appeal the decision of the Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) or the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO). But Administrative procedure (under Administrative Remedy, 28 C.F.R. pt. 542) requires that the inmate exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. This can be very lengthy. "Inmates are obligated to attempt informal resolution of grievances prior to filing a formal request …"

Once filed, the Warden has 20 days to respond. "If the inmate is dissatisfied with the Warden’s response, he or she has 20 days to file a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal." The Regional Director has 30 days to respond. If dissatisfied, the inmate has 30 days to file a Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal. Then the COA has 40 days to investigate. After this remedy is exhausted, the inmate can go to federal court to complain. The total process to get to court can take nearly five months. It is unpredictable how long it would take for a resolution in federal court. The ultimate outcome of any issue favoring an inmate going this path is likely very poor.

C – Inmates Housing Facilities and Population: Maryanne Vollers of Time Magazine (November 5, 2006) provided data concerning the physical setting at ADX "Supermax" Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. At a cost to taxpayers of $60 million, ADX was built in 1994 but opened in 2004. The Facility had 490 inmates beds. "By November 2006 there were only 208 employees [down from the original 240]." The average cell size is 7 feet X 12 feet square but with very little free space for movement–due to a concrete bed, sink, toilet etc. Most inmates are kept in cells for 23 or more hours per day–every day. They will see only sky or concrete through a tiny window–the outside world is forbidden. If anyone gets to exercise during part of the one remaining hour, he will do so alone in a separate concrete chamber. Food is hand delivered by guards. The entire prison is secured by numerous cameras, 1,400 remote-controlled steel doors, and 12 foot high, razor-sharp wire fences with laser beams and attack dogs guarding the space between the fences.

Vollers points out that "only five percent of ADX’s inmates enter directly from their sentencing." Ninety percent of the inmates are transferred from another prison. ADX, a control unit, holds the most dangerous and disruptive inmates [22% have killed fellow prisoners in other jails]. Some of the inmates are notorious convicts: Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind Sheik planner of the World Trade Center bombing–1993; Robert Hansen (former FBI spy for the Soviet Union); Ted Kaczynski (the Unibomber); Zacarias Missouri (World Trade Center conspirator); Richard Reed (Shoe Bomber); Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City Fed Building bombing) and Tim McVeigh (executed on June 11, 2001 after his conviction in the Oklahoma City Fed Building bombing). Yet some of the inmates are totally non-violent and have entered the system via political reasons.

D – Case in Point: The Idaho County Free Press published an article on January 1st, 2003, saying that David Roland Hinkson sued IRS and others for $50 million. Hinkson filed the suit in 2002 claiming that the defendants violated his [Hinkson’s] rights in relation to a federal tax investigation and subsequent pending federal criminal prosecution arising from the Internal Revenue Service Investigation of Hinkson and WaterOz (a local area business selling specialty mineral water)."

Hinkson was 49 when arrested (on April 4th, 2003). After being arrested on IRS related charges and while in custody, he was charged with 11 counts of Murder for Hire, but he was acquitted or all charges dropped except three. His trial began January 10th, 2005.

Richard C. Tallman–Ninth Circuit Court Judge–sentenced David Hinkson (Inmate #08795-023), to spend the rest of his life behind bars–recommending that he be sent directly to ADX Federal Penitentiary in Florence Colorado. In his pre-sentence report Tallman stated that “Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 516 months [43 years]… and that the Defendant be initially classified as a high risk inmate who refuses to comply with institutional security rules, who poses a continuing danger to witnesses and Federal officers, and poses a risk of flight with access to money secreted in foreign bank accounts.”

David Hinkson’s conviction of the three charges was based solely on the testimony of one man: Elven Joe Swisher. Swisher, a former Marine, was later expelled for life from the Marine Corps League for fraud and wearing unauthorized medals. The Lewiston Tribune (Idaho) published an article about Swisher:

“A Cottonwood [Idaho] man is charged with making false statement about his military record and taking thousands of dollars in unearned veterans disability benefits between 2004 and 2006. [This was the same period of time that he was testifying against Mr. Hinkson.] The four counts include falsifying information that … he served in combat and had been awarded medals for his military service, including the Purple Heart, Silver Star, Navy and Marine Corps medals with a gold star in lieu of the second award, and a Marine Corps Commendation Medal with Combat "V.”

“Swisher is also charged with presenting false testimony to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and a forged DD-214 form (which is a discharge document that is evidence of a veteran’s status) in an effort to obtain a higher disability rating that would qualify him for more benefits than he was entitled.”

He was arrested in July 2007 and was convicted on all four counts on April 9, 2008, but still, after postponement, awaits sentencing (It is scheduled for September 29, 2008). The trial had been originally scheduled for March 31, 2008.

The Marine Corps Times listed Swisher as one of the "5 newly exposed fakers … He could face up to 20 years and 6 months in prison along with a $755,000 fine….."

Oral argument for Dave's Appeal occurred on May 7th, 2007. Michael Taxay, one of the U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted David and who represented the Department of Justice in a pending appeal, said that "the Court’s [Tallman’s] decision not to allow Hinkson to prove that Swisher had lied" did not deprive Hinkson of a fair trial. The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal may sustain this conclusion because it held in the case of Jones v. Shankland (800 F.2d 1310 (1987) that a prosecutor "may knowingly offer perjured testimony." He argued that (1) Swisher record [of fraud and perjury] was not an issue [A prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred (Tenth Circuit Fed. Court of Appeals in Norton v Liddell 620 F.2d 1375 (1980)]; (2) Swisher’ military record was of no consequence [Prosecutors may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence (U.S. Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman 424 U.S. 409-1976)]; and (3) Tallman’s denying the Jury to hear about Swisher’s lies "did not prejudice him." [It was held in Fifth Circuit Fed. Court of Appeal in Henzel v. Bernstein (608 F.2d 654-1979) that a prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence.]

Dennis Riordan, Hinkson’s appellate attorney, argued orally before the Ninth Circuit and in his brief that the government’s harmlessness argument is fatuous. In a case in which Hinkson’s conviction required the jury to find Swisher credible beyond a reasonable doubt, the government would have stood no chance of obtaining guilty verdicts if jurors had learned that Swisher’s very appearance on the stand constituted a crime of moral turpitude, and that the man who came before them claiming under oath to be a war hero had achieved nothing in the military other than a court martial. Reversal of these tainted convictions is imperative if the integrity of the federal judicial system is to be maintained.… The government of a strong and free nation does not need convictions based on such testimony.

II–QUESTIONS:

A – Does ADX adhere to the Mission Statement of BOP with regards to confining inmates in a humane facility where offenders are assisted in becoming law abiding citizens?

Discussion:

The Bureau was established to provide more progressive and humane care of federal inmates and to facilitate their reintegration into society. Their stated objective is to help reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism and to help offenders to become law abiding citizens. They contend that "misconduct can be significantly reduced through programs that emphasize personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance of others."

However, in reality, what really occurs at ADX? David Hinkson , a man, an extremely creative inventor, who during his entire life has never been violent towards anyone whomsoever was denied his civil rights based on testimony of a known liar and extortionist (Swisher). Swisher lied on the witness stand that he was not the owner of Northwest Analytical, the company that did WaterOz’s product testing.

Swisher was the last one to enter the WaterOz factory. All employees believe that Swisher put cyanide in the product. Then he said he discover the contamination during his testing. He called David on January 4, 2003, advising him that there was cyanide in the product (WaterOz has no need for cyanide–but Swisher does use it in his work). If Mr. Hinkson would surrender half of his business to Swisher, Swisher would not testify (blackmail him) by stating that David offered to pay him to kill certain officials. The fact that Hinkson was not in the United States at the time Swisher claimed they met was provable via his passport. Tallman did not allow Hinkson’s passport to be submitted as exculpatory evidence.

Although Hinkson remains very angry because of what he perceives as a corrupt government, he continues to be totally compliant. He follows the rules but will not surrender his individuality.

David Hinkson’s mother sent a letter of encouragement to her son and enclosed a hymn (The Old Rugged Cross). The letter was returned by ADX Warden Ron Wiley (dated August 30, 2005) with the following explanation: "Due to security concerns, inmates may only receive publications from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore [They returned the entire letter]; this policy also applies to single pages from publications or internet articles."

Inmates are entitled, under the rules, to one fifteen-minute phone call per month. However, in Mr. Hinkson’s case, he was allowed 3 per month. After a year without any "misbehavior," an inmate may possibly make 5 fifteen-minute calls in a month. But frequently those calls are interrupted within seconds. Seldom–if at all–do the guards allow the inmate to redial to reestablish a connection.
For example, on September 24th, 2005, while calling his parents, Dave was cut off within 30 seconds of making a coveted call. Then on September 19, 2005, he got to make an extra phone call. Prison Counselor Richard Madison demanded that Dave sign over $20 per month from his commissary account. His parents sent a book (November 19, 2005) entitled Betrayed by the Bench, but they refused to give it to him. One year later (November 30th, 2006) he was allowed to make one extra call for the month. February 12, 2007, he said no shower was allowed–no reason was given. On March 29, 2007, Hinkson expressed how depressed he is getting: "I don’t know if I can stand it much longer." Even though they no longer chained him hand and foot whenever they moved him about, he was growing more bitter.

Days before June 22, 2007, a legal issue came up concerning an attorney who had bilked him out of $70,000. The attorney was reported to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Court hired a law firm to represent them in dealing with the issue. They set a date for response, but there was no way for his attorneys to reach Mr. Hinkson except via snail-mail. Finally the legal documents that needed to be notarized reached him. He submitted a request for a notary but was ignored. He waited till the deadline was almost upon him, and then called his father–using one of his personal calls (he was getting five calls per month at this time).

When the phone rang at his parents home on June 22nd, his father took the call and called David’s attorney on a cell phone. His father held up both phones so that David could explain exactly what ADX had done in delaying notarization of the vital documents. But, the call was immediately terminated by the guards. Within two hours the Wisconsin law firm received the notarized documents, but four days later, David received PART 1 - INCIDENT REPORT. Hinkson in K Unit Phone room at 7:40am did "Use the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (three way calling).

The Report said as follows:

On June 22, 2007, SIS staff became aware of a 3-way telephone call that had taken place at 740 am this date. Hinkson had made a telephone call to his Father in Ouray, Colorado. Three minutes into the phone call Hinkson’s Father verbally stated he would call a third party and get them on the line. At 3:57 into the Hinkson got his third party on the line, and Hinkson began speaking with this third party from that point on.

David responded in the Report as follows:

I asked my dad to call the attorney, but I did not ask him to call the attorney while I was on the phone with him. I was talking to my dad on his home phone and he called the attorney on the speaker phone [cell phone]. I could hear my dad talking to the attorney and I could hear the attorney. I did talk to the attorney too.

On line 19. Committee Decision is based on the following information: Based upon the written report and also in the UDC listening to the recording, the inmate did not ask his father to place a 3rd party call, but once the father placed the 3rd party call the inmate participated in a 3rd party call by communicating directly with the attorney in this phone call.

On line 20. Committee Action: Recommend removal from K-Unit in Step Down Program in J-Unit of Step Down Program. Signed by UDC Chairman K Fluck and Member William Haygood.

This so-called UCD Committee Report investigation was held in the hallway outside Mr. Hinkson’s solitary cell. Fluck and Haygood commented: "You and your father are stupid."

The end result of this episode was that for another year David would be moved to a SuperMax Control Unit with fewer phone privileges, to be chained hands and feet even when taken to the 10 minute shower during the one remaining hour of solitary confinement each 24 hour day.

Of interest, Mr. Hinkson noted on July 31, 2007, that Fox News aired an episode where high profile inmates at ADX were playing bingo. Good press is important to the Administrators of BOP facilities. So is BOP’s ADX, in fact, encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism and to help offenders to become law abiding citizens?

Let’s review the findings from a book entitled Criminal Injustice edited by Elihu Rosenblatt (1996) and excerpts taken later in an article by Erica Thompson and Jan Susler entitled Supermax Prisons, High-Tech Dungeons and Modern-Day Torture.

The SuperMax Control Unit or lockdown concept beginning at Marion Illinois in 1963 has been continually criticized by human rights organizations. These concerned individuals argue that it has never been demonstrated that repression brings desired results. SuperMax lockdowns seem to be designed to break the defiant spirit and behavior through psychological deprivation–in which prisoners are stripped of their individual identities.

In a 1987 report of Amnesty International it stated that the Marion method violates the United Nation’s Standard of Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners, that there is hardly a rule in the Standard Minimum Rules that is not infringed in some way or other. Security measures override the individual need for human contact, spiritual fulfillment, and fellowship, and this is the excuse for a constant show of sheer enforce. Such conditions constitute psychological pain and agony tantamount to torture.

In 1990 report of the house of representatives subcommittee on court’s intellectual property and the administration of justice expressed concern about the amount of time in expanded their cells in relative isolation and the Limited opportunity for production and recreational activities is available in the highly controlled environment and the need to continue to develop a more humane approach to the incarceration of maximum security prison population.

Since 1983 to be Merion model physical and psychological control has bombed control units throughout this country the merry and the was replaced by the new federal control unit enforce Colorado ADA’s and Merion notorious for high levels of uranium contamination human rights watch in 1991 found that the single most disturbing aspect was the trolling for rations of control units prisons.

Inmates are essentially sentenced twice once by the court, to a certain period of imprisonment; and the second time, by the prison administration to confinement in maxi -- Max is under extreme harsh conditions and without independent supervision. This second sentence is open ended and limited only by the overall length of an inmate sentence and is meted out without the benefit of counsel. The increasing use of prisons within prisons leads to numerous human rights abuses and frequent violation of the U.N. standard minimum rules for treatment of prisoners.

Super prisons control units differ from lesser security institutions in three principles respects. First other prisoners are out of their cells for an average of 13 hours per day, Super prisons are permanent lockdown facilities. In other words prisoners are caged in their single cell approximately 23 hours per day.

Prisoners are not allowed to communicate with other prisoners. Complete isolation is assured. Prisoners must eat, sleep, and live their entire lives alone in the cell. No religious service. Censorship of reading materials a strict.

A person needs human contact, communication and individuality argue prison officials as threats to the smooth running and security of the institution and are therefore prescribed. On the rare occasions when a prisoner has an opportunity to leave his cell, he is fully Shackle hands, feet and waste and flanked by several guards. Minor rule infractions result in severe punishment ranging from a prisoner being fully strapped down to his bed to a visit from the cell extracting team. The legal effect of an administrative transfer is that the prisoner has no legal recourse to challenge the designation.

A prisoner can be held indefinitely in Supermax is because of that designation. What is going on in United States in the name of law in order is obscene and unprecedented in history. We must educate ourselves, speak out, and take action immediately. We must make a concerted effort to intensify the debate on all fronts. We must be relentless. There are no excuses.

B – Does ADX comply with the Legal Resource Guide with regards to inmate rights and disciplinary procedures?

Discussion: A thorough investigation may reveal that inmates are not given reasonable access to legal materials, that all federal prisons do not maintain inmate law libraries with meaningful books, that an inmate may purchase legal materials outside the prison but may not be allowed to retain them, and that inmates are not permitted a reasonable amount of time to conduct their own legal research to prepare legal documents or retain their received publications.

Violations of prohibited acts do not appear to carry sanctions that correspond to the severity of the events (as relates to segregation, loss of good time, credits, loss of privileges and verbal warnings). Yet retaliatory and capricious disciplinary actions appear to be permitted.