Sunday, May 11, 2008
In this appeal, Tommy Silverstien elaborates on the harshness of his conditions and cites other cases.
Part A - Reason for Appeal.
As typical, for the last 23 years, this Administration (BOP) continues to justify my severe isolation based on my history, out ignores the Court rulings I've cited along with my 19 year clean conduct past.
The Warden decided to pass the whip of punishment / responsibility onto the Regional Director, who will predictably follow suit. So the question is when exactly will my exemplary record be considered and at what point in time will I be released from Solitary Confinement, or is it a mute point since it doesn't matter to Prison officials how good my behavior is, I'm not getting out of Isolation. If this is the case, its rather inept and counter productive of this administration to torture me for good conduct, rather than encourage it with more privileges, On the contrary as stated earlier in B.P.9, my treatment.situation went from bad to worse, since my transfer from U.S.P. Leavenworth to Florence Max. When all I earned the past 23 years was confiscated! Recently they went to the extreme of actually building a door between the only other prisoner on this four box car tier that I am confined on. Pie has been the only prisoner I been able to speak with since 1983, although we can't see each other! The door prevents us from shouting to each other - which I suspect is the diabolical intent! This all shows that they're seriously not concerned with any legitimate penological interest. This reflects an obvious abuse of Administrators authority / discretion, and a retaliatory vendetta that was boasted about by one BOP official publicly as stated in my BP9.
As for my so called "semi, annual 6 month reviews" they're an obvious sham! There aren't any meaningful standards to determine whether I can be released into general population. Its just a futile process,(evident by my clean record v my current treatment / confinement) for prisoncrats to use - misuse in order to disguise their maltreatment - giving the false illusion to continue what they are doing, just because of a "review" twice yearly, what do these "reviews" consist of? Who exactly has the power to release, and what more can I do that I've not already demonstrated, with 18 long years of good behavior.
The Wardens at Leavenworth granted more privileges through the years that I never violated, yet they were arbitrarily, "maliciously" taken from me. I charge maliciousness due to the irrefutable fact that administrators knew what all I was allowed at U.S.P. Leavenworth. But instead of moving me to where I could maintain my earned status, with good behavior, however I was exiled unexpectedly to one of the most secure and repressive cell units at Florence. If not the worst in the B.O.P! As my history and the B.O.P. rhetoric that accompanies it spare me the sensationalised, paraphrase Hype used to create a monster in order to justify atrocious isolation - truth be told, this governing body released far more dangerous and despicable prisoners than me to the street and to less secure prisons who have informed on others for B.O.P. Government agents and Prosecutors. So my criminal history shouldn't be the sole determining factor, nor should B.O.P. be able to single me out for personal retribution since they can't kill me, contrary 10 informers who get what they want from squealing, I earned what I sot the old fashioned way... With good behavior: so I appreciate it more, afterv23 years I would think B.O.P. officials would have found a new boogie man to fear and crucify by now. It's rather pathetic the way they still act like petrified school girls frightened by a 54 year old man, as though the slightest inch of freedom I get I will harm someone.
Even further frustrating, this is decided by people 1 don't even know, and they judge me on. something I did 23 years ago and they haven't a clue as to who I am today! Nor should I be held accountable for others fear and paranoia. I've not threatened anyone, nor want too since 1983.1 should be judged by my current behavior and the man I am today, not who 1 was and did a lifetime ago. Although I take full responsibility for my actions, I just object to the torturous isolation I've been subjected to for two decades - as those in charge continue to fulfil their threat to make my life a living hell. The Court has already sentenced me to "life" Its not the B.O.P's duty to punish me, imprisonment is punishment!
Kelly v Brewer cite as 378 F Supp, 447 (1974) Kelly killed a Prison Guard, P G 455, it is declared that the plaintiffs continued confinement in. indefinite A.D. Segregation is a violation of his right to due process under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, given there is no meaningful review under appropriate standards to define whether the plaintiff remains a threat to security of the institution, and thus being in indefinite A.D. segregation.
P.G.455 it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that meaningful standards be developed to determine and review the issues relating to the Plaintiffs undefined A.D. Segregation, and that the plaintiff be given proper periodic hearings under these standards to determine whether he can be released into the General population. 42 U.S. CA. 1983. U.S. constitution amendment 14, Z8 U.S. GA, 1343 (3) Cases on creel and unusual punishment is contained in 51 A.T.R 3 e 1111, P.G. The court of course isn't interested in a game of semantics but only in the conditions of confinement, no matter what it is labeled by prison administrators. Since I know how prisoncrats like to disguise their sadistic torture / isolation cells. P.G. This was a form of retribution and punishment by prison staff against this inmate before his trial and conviction, jurisdiction of section 1983 and title 28 USC, section 1343 (3). This course of action is conferred" upon this court by title 42 USC. Pg 451, 12, Dr Stephan Fox, a Psychologist employed by the university Iowa, has studied the effects of this type of confinement upon prisoners, and has concluded that solitary confinement (AD Segregation) and the sensory' deprivation resulting from such confinement can have extremely harmful Psychological and physical effects upon the person involved.
Possibly deleterious effects include, loss of self concept, disorientation.depersonalization, (unrealistic Interaction with others), depression, frustration, distrust of others, lack of productivity, and retarded personal growth, (plaintiff ex. 4) PG. 451, 13. The plaintiff is being held indefinably in his present status, with no hope of entering the general population unless he meets certain undefined criteria of defendant Warden Brewer. The Testimony at trial in this case showed this review to have been a sham and a meaningless exercise. There are no standards of review to which the prisoner can direct himself to attempt to show; his fitness for release into the general population. PG. 454 (7) There is no doubt that the ''conclusive'" or irrebuttable presumption is disfavoured in the law. Stanley v Illinois , 405 U.S.645, 657, 925 Cl 1208,31L,ED551 (1972), Bell v Burson, 402 U.S. 535,915(and 1586.29 L, ED 2 D 90(1971);U.S.dept of Agriculture. Murry,313,U.S.508,935.C+2832,3,ed 2d 767(1973):Vlandis v Kline, 412 US 441,935, c+2230371.ed2d 63 (1973)
The question of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has been before the eighth circuit many times. One of the leading cases is Jackson v Bishop, 404F2d 571 (8th cir 1968). Also Sharpe v Sigler. 4081 2d9666 (8th cir.1969): Bums v Svenson, 430 F 2d 772 (8th cir 1970): Harris v Settle 322F. 2d 908 (circa 1963): Knecht v Gillman, 488F2d 1136( 8th cir 1973), Wright v Me Mann,387 F2d 519 (cir 1967). O'Brien v Moriarty cite as 489 F 2d94I (1974) P6.944 (78) A punishment not always forbidden may violate the eighth amendment if in the circumstances, it is extremely disproportionate, arbitrary or unnecessary, Furman v Georgia, supra. 408 U.S. ATZ38, 238, 239,925.c+ 2726 ( Brennan J concurring) Imposed inappropriately, or for too long & period, even the permissible forms of Solitary confinement might violate the eight amendment, cases up holding instances of Solitary confinement-involve most often its imposition as a short term punishment for disciplinary infractions, PG. 944. A punishment may be so below civilised norms as to be cruel and unusual no matter what its provocation. Or it maybe cruel and unusual because extremely disproportionate to the occasion.
See Furman v George, 94419. 11 Facing ''complicated and combustible situations each day. Prison officials must be free to make a wide range of decisions. Much must be left to their good faith, discretion. Paimigiano v Baxter 48TF. 2d 1283 (ISl circ 1973). RX Rel.Jones v Stewart cite as 231F. 3d1248 (9th cir.2000) (3) PG12.2. Both experts state that it is well accepted that conditions such as those presenting the SMUII where Miller is housed can cause Psychological decompensation to the point that individuals may become incompetent. The doctors, who previously found him incompetent to waive council, now raise serious questions regarding his competency to make decisions to die. In addition, Julie Hall council at the Arizona - capital representation project, has submitted a declaration stating that Miller told her he was still willing to pay with his life to escape the conditions of SMUII. Hall has been in regular communications with Miller, attests that Miller's mental state has declined, he has become increasingly depressed, and he has resigned himself to dying. In July of this year Miller suffered auditory hallucinations finally.
This court in comes recognized the harsh conditions of death row in Arizona and its possible effects on those that live there and on that basis an evidentiary hearing, see Comer v Stewart, 215F 3d 910. 916 (9tn cir 2000). We and other courts have recognized that prison conditions remarkably similar to Mr Comer's descriptions of his current confinement can adversely affect a person's mental health. Mr Corner was also confined in SMUII. PG. 1254 (4) Doctors Morenz and Morris are not strangers to Miller, know his troubled history and their speculation as to the potential for adverse effects of incarceration in SMUII, finds support: in this courts own assessment of that facility, in Comer v Stewart, 215 F 3d 910,917 - 18 (9th cir, 2000) moreover, his decision to abandon his appeals once he entered SMUII suggest the condition of confinement may in deed have adversely affected his mental state. _
If after reading this, you would like to help him join the general prison population, contact Tommy directly or write or email FFUP. Addresses below. If you do decide to write Tommy, feel free to use our PO Box for your address. Just be sure you give us your real address so we can forward his letters to you. Also, we are always available to answer questions or provide support as needed.
Tommy Silverstein 2-13-030-L;14634-116 USP Max; Box 8500; Florence, CO 81226
FFUP(Forum for Understanding Prisons); PO Box 285; Blue River, Wi 53518 email@example.com
to third appeal, more art and eloquence