Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report – Vol. 4 no. 3 Summer 2014

Received by Email:

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report
“Veritas in Caritatis”             
Vol. 4, No 3, Summer Issue 2014
THEME: “Audi alterum partem” – Listen to the other side!
“Voice of the Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report”
Website: Nvjprudence.wordpress.com (this issue here)
Statement of Purpose:
The NJPR Newsletter reports on current prison conditions, good and bad; more importantly it looks at and evaluates the legal processes and the substantive laws which are designed to keep men in prison: Pre-trial issues, probation and parole policy, sentencing structures, post-conviction law, and most important, the philosophy underlying policy in practice.
The purpose of the NJPR Website is to provide a repository of affidavits, declarations and grievances in Web-Dossiers organized by categories of intuitional behavior. Fundamentally, this is a whistleblowing organization trying to associate with other “transparency” projects at an intrastate, national and global level. We seek to identify patterns which can be utilized by the U.S. Department of Justice.
We invite any resident, and especially judicial officers of the Courts and government Administration to write letters to the NJPR.
Index to this Issue:
Section One: Conditions
1. Cameras: For Us, or Against Us? By Rahsquo
2. Crowding, Violence and Nevada Stickney Report
3. Uppity Inmate: Engineering Submission, by Cal
4. Government Pushback, Small Town Style
Section Two: Law, Equity and Policy
1.     The Darkness Deepens
2.     Sicherungverwahrung and the Male Peril
Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion
1.    Report: Nevada Appellate and Post-Conviction Project Now Defunct
2.    Justice Brandeis Innocence Project
3.    New College Program: New Free Dom College
4.    Sociological Study Underway
5.    Obamacare Now Covers Ex-Felons
6.    Poem: The Man in Me by John Fenton
Subscriptions and Services
Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Newsletter can be delivered via e-mail or snail-mail. We ask you send a copy into NDOC system and your local legislature and press!
E-mail: $3 for 6 months
            $5 for 12 months
Snail-mail: $8 for 6 months
                $15 for 12 months
Dept. of Justice Issue Dossiers:
Scanning, storage and Electronic Delivery of Dept. of Justice, press, politicians and state administrators.
            .75¢ 1st 10 pages ($7.50)
            .60¢ per page after that
  Customized letter: $1 per 250 word
Section One: Conditions
1) Cameras: For Us or Against Us? By Rahsquo
In a putative effort to curb violence and other illegal activity at NNCC (a medical/retirement facility) cameras were installed in 2011. Prior to this installation of cameras in all units (except the human barn unit 10), the only areas where cameras were active was the infirmary and the visiting room.
The British author George Orwell (ne Eric Blair) in his visionary novel, 1984, described a futuristic society that furnished cameras almost everywhere. “Big Brother” would be individually monitoring your whereabouts. Mr. Orwell’s book was published in the 1930’s, and may have inspired the voyeuristic practices that are today disguised as legal surveillance.
Immediately, I can attest to have witnessed grown men stimulated by the camera installation to exhibit behaviors of hysterical panic about the sudden lack of privacy. They wondered what the cameras were for? Some speculated that they were there to deter and ward off any further assaults by a rogue group of correctional officers under the leadership of a sadistic lieutenant that harassed and physically abused old and crippled prisoners. The mutual occasional fisticuffs that are bound to transpire among 1500 men did not seem to warrant the rise in “get tough” measures imposed by the administration. After all, NNCC, in addition to being a medical facility, is a low-medium yard. Surely the majority of the elderly sick and dying prisoners were no threat to the safety and security of the institution.
Here is an example of the seemly side of camera usage in prison:
After the cameras were up-and-running, a newly admitted prisoner was allegedly assaulted by one of two prisoners in general population. When the “alleged” assault victim reported the incident, the cameras were “played back” and the prison investigator swiftly apprehended the two perpetrator caught on camera—or so the officials thought. In fact, there was no coverage where the actual assault took place— inside the bathrooms. Only the hallways have video monitors in the units. Two black men who appeared on the hallway video “around” the time of the assault. These mistakenly accused were pressured to randomly name two others, who were then charged with the assault. One of the now falsely accused had an alibi that arbitrarily disregarded; he had been in the infirmary for a doctor’s visit and had proof of it. The other black man lived in another wing, and no video footage was use to prove he left that wing to go to the other at the time of the assault. Both innocent men did serious hole time, while the actual bully went home 2 days after the beating!
On the other hand, video evidence has brought some justice to the yard. On Thanksgiving Day 2009, an official lynching occurred in the mental health wards of the prison infirmary, and because of the existence of a video tape of the “cell extraction” the killer correctional officials were removed from duty (at this time there is no knowledge of and criminal changes ever brought against them). Rumors coming out of the correction staff community report the mentally deranged inmate was gassed, tazed, and deprived of air with a plastic bag. One of the rogue cops, before the excrement hit the fan, retired.
The video evidence reportedly resulted in the firing of two officials, the suspension of two others.
So, are the cameras for us or against us? It appears to depend on the practice of a virtue called justice by the controllers of the cameras.
2)   Crowding, Violence and the Nevada Stickney Report
On and off the NNCC situation has included the usage of dayrooms for use as temporary housing in order to upgrade the facility’s Unit bathrooms, increasing the mandated 90 to 1 ratio of staff to inmate to about 140 to 1 in the two housing barns 10A and 10B. this Unit did not need any retrofit, having been built in 2007, so it was used as overflow. The work is now done and the overflow was moved out on July 28.
The mandates of population-staff ratios stem from a lawsuit in the early 1980’s that lasted until 2002. It is captioned Stickney v. List, CR-R-79_11_ECR. I am told stories by old timers, that in those days, correctional officers made minimum wage and supplemented their income by selling drugs, hookers and booze to inmate. The ratio of officers to inmates was 1 UNIT to 1 GUARD, resulting in shockingly high levels of rape (yes, man rape) and assault, obviously exacerbated by drugs and alcohol.
3)   Uppity Inmate: Engineery Total Submission
It is unfortunate duty to report on the retaliation by an NDOC official against a fellow inmate. It is truly troubling because, as a witness, it was clear to me the inmate was innocent of any wrongdoing. It was even more disturbing to witness the capricious, arbitrary, irrational behavior of a high-ranking NDOC official, who was so drunk on her own infallible power, she lost custody of her mind.
The NDOC was in the midst of implementing its standard [unwritten] institutional procedure of geno-punitive retribution. This term describes the practice of operant conditioning of groups. It is a practice consistent with the deprivation theory of corrections that justifies subtle forms of terrorism against target populations aimed at deterring future bad acts.
An inmate of the Unit that [illegally] houses 140 inmates was caught making pruno, or home-made fruit wine. The police found it in the ceiling. He [the winermaker] was sequestered to the disciplinary housing unit. But the [unwritten] policy of NDOC is to punish the entire community in which the transgressor lives. The policy requires acts of aggression by the prison officials against the entire cohort, and in this case included:
The arbitrary and capricious taking of property under color of a law or housing code,
The disestablishment of practices and customs of the inmate community, in this case the use of curtains in front of the defecation toilets and in and around the bank beds for sleeping privacy,
The drastic and absurd removal of the ceiling tiles in the rooms where the pruno was hidden ;
The invention of cosmetic rules of prohibition regarding the placement of fans and television reception antennas, and the storage of clothes, and usage of shelf space.
The sudden capricious demand that “this place has to look like a military barracks”.
The officials made people straighten out the towels hanging at the ends of beds and take down decorative items, or intensive micromanage
Although these seem extremely mild irritants the psychological exacerbation of fear was impressive, due to the mere increase of police presence in the unit. Normally there is one officer on duty 24 hours a duty, and visits by “suits” (high ranking officials) are extremely unusual. During the height of the government hysterical overreaction to the pruno crime, an uppity inmate had the gumption to ask the ringleader of the high rankers applying the operant retribution what the provocation was for such an attack. The Ringleader government thug responded by demanding the inmates Identification card, and ordering his “level reduction” by moving him out of his “Level One” unit into a level Two unit. The level reduction may cause the loss of his job, which would directly increase the amount of time spent in prison because non-workers do not get “good time” credit. The loss of lower custody status reduced his privileges, but he is too terrified to file a grievance, because he fears escalated government push-back by his being moved to a higher custody yard.
The aider and abettor of the Ringleader carrying out the orders of his superior official told me personally, when I asked “why all this hubbub?” “The inmate who confronted the Glorious Ringleader really pissed her off, he should have known his place”.
The practice of harem scarem mass punishments (geno-punitive retribution) has a counterproductive effect of causing inmate-on-inmate violence which is the exact opposite of the job of a correctional facility. The behaviors of the officials trigger mimetic behaviors of the inmates. Because of the immature example of bullying and irrational scapegoating of 139 men to pay for the act of one alcoholic inmate, (violence begets violence), the inmates experienced a huge community increase of blaming, finger pointing, character assassination, backstabbing and faultfinding—against each other. Only a tiny fraction had the gumption to file a grievance, which will be reported on next issue.
4) Government Push-Back, Small Town Style: How to Chill a Prisoner
A recent exposé in the Rolling Stone, (Putin Clamps Down by Janet Reitman 5/8/14) there is an interesting series of observations. Each phenomena has an American homologue.
First, this sentence uses a category of relation between the government and an individual or group:
“Wary of government push-back, the protesters played by the rules,…” (53)
Here, the term push-back refers to the use of the police power of the national government of Russia. Here is an example of how push-back works at a prison facility in the backwood polity of Nevada.
A prisoner at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, run under an experimental regime that imposes collective psychological conditioning (mind control) through a “level system”, suffered head trauma from a piece of falling concrete. He received treatment and was even taken out in chains to be checked at a local hospital. Several days later he found out another man had suffered from a near miss of falling concrete in the same Unit 4 (the lowest level of the operant conditioning system). He filed an emergency grievance, stating he wanted an official to take pictures of the dilapidated concrete ceiling and to be compensated for the pain suffered.
The officer in charge called the victim of falling concrete up to the main administrative office. When he got there he was met by a bizarre sight: all of the correctional staff assigned to the Mayberry control center had collected up into a choral group of 5-7 persons and when the inmate arrived inside the building, they all sang out, in UNISON, the same words, in the same voice:
HIIII ROBERT!
Wha…? Really
Robert filed suit later, and it passed screening, because in addition to the bizarre stage show, these clowns took him to administrative segregation under the color of law.
Section Two: Law and Equity
1)   The Darkness Deepens
The Nevada Department of Corrections is generally exempt from all rulemaking procedures which executive branch officials must use. These Rules are found in Chapter 233B of the Revised Statutes (NRS). 
There was an exception, until recently. The prison store fund rules used to require that the Administrative rulemaking process had to be utilized. It appears that this requirement might have been revoked. This rules requirement penciled in at NRS 209.221 (7) and (8) is referred to in the 233B, stating “except as provided in 209.221, NDOC is exempt from 233B rules”. However, this language is deleted in a recent computer printout of the statute, making NDOC’s discretionary rulemaking power absolute, and thus a despotic dominion.
Chapter 176, NRS 176.0125 establishes the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice, at paragraph 4, states that the commission shall:

“Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Corrections… with consideration as to whether it is feasible… to establish an oversight or advisory board…(c) policies for the operation of the Department of Corrections;”

There’s some hope in that.
Now, any warden with common sense would want to obtain the intelligence of circumspection by offering to receive “input” from all parties possible. The unwritten rules of reason require this. There are cases where this is done. In 2008, this writer was witness to the actions of Chaplain Garcia at Lovelock. He asked for inmate participation, he was delivered an article of the Prison Legal News article regarding the case at Pelican Bay Prison in California where the officials refused to allow hardbound books. (PLN, July, 07, pg 19)
The result of that case was a court order for the officials to cut the cover off. Garcia brought that law to the meeting and a policy was established to do this. Another example of rulemaking input is at AR 802, Community Volunteers. At 802.04(i) it states “A volunteer is encouraged to submit suggestions for conducting, enhancing or improving volunteer services”. What needs to happen is to change the language to say,
“The warden shall request, on a yearly basis, the volunteers and families of convicts and the general public to submit suggestions. The input shall be tallied and formatted, and a copy delivered to the survey participants, and to the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau, who shall make said survey report available to the general public in both formats, digital and hardcopy”.
A third example of current potential input for policy review and rules process is the Inmate Advisory Committee (IAC). This practice is being used at the medium yard at NNCC, and in general is used for conveying decrees from the Glorious Leader, and as a pressure release value that deals with cosmetic issues regarding the conditions of confinement. It’s basically a place to whine for whiners and moaners  about trivialities like television reception.
The Principle of Government Secrecy is necessary in some situations, such as in times of war, and the executive war machine needs to conceal its hand from the enemy. The so-called War-on-Crime justifies civil government secrecy. But the “war-on-crime is a product of the ideological apparatus of the official anarchists trying to escalate the war-on-crime for economic good. Malinski v. NY 68 S. Ct 781 demands no ear be given to loose talk about war on crime!
2)   Sicherungverwahrungand the Male Peril—Myth, Spin and Therapeutic Economy
In the April 2014 CURE Civil Commitment Newsletter, the article “The Presumption of Dangerousness” did an excellent job describing the state of affairs. This reports on two dimensions which are important if we attempt to be scientifically circumspect. The first dimension is the historical, and the second is the normative, or “ethical”.
The historical dimensions open upon the Germanic homologue of “civil commitment”, or a “non-punitive” taking by the government of some normal civil right. Traditional German law has something called Massregeln, which seem, like civil commitment, to fall between civil and criminal forms of law. Massregeln include sanctions such a taking away a privilege, like the right to drive a car or work in a particular industry. The non-punitive taking of physical liberty is called Sicherungsverwarung.
Like here, the taking of a right in the realm of civil law have fewer procedural safeguards. In the1871 German penal code they did not distinguish between penalties civil and criminal. Because the civil taking causes suffering, the taking cannot logically be thought of as a non-penalty.
There was a movement to bifurcate the Massregelnfrom criminal law that could not get legislated. The German lawmakers did not want to make it easier for the executive branch to impose civil penalties. However, that increase of power to impose civil removal of physical was gained by guess who? Adolph Hitler and his fascist regime. Although abused by that regime, it has not gone away.
However, today civil commitment must be pronounced at original sentencing (like many American enhancement laws here). It must also be reviewed and confirmed by due process hearing upon termination of the criminal sentence. Also the civil penalty of post-punitive confinement is safeguarded from abuse by the legal principles of proportionality and equity (fairness). Safeguards are built-in in ways that don’t happen in America. This information is taken from “Abusing State Power or Controlling Risk?: Sex Offender Commitment” by Nora Demleitner, 30 Fordham Urb. L. J. [http://law.fordham.edu/fordham-urban-law-journal/ulj.htm] 1621.
The second dimension is the normative, or the moral aspect of law, in its most traditional sense. The current ideological apparatus uses a positivistic rhetoric which colonizes the public discourse to a point of exclusive monopoly, even among the most strident critics of the American law-and-order regime. This means an exclusion of the moral-virtue dimension of law. The historical dimension is tolerated, but the moral is absolutely dismissed as mere opinion. Therefore, all public discourse is a soliloquy of the actuarial statistical mathematics, which appears and sounds impressively scientific. But it is not. The usage of the rhetoric is done purposely by the law-and-order regime to stir up widespread panic, sway the minds of juries and judges, and colonize the minds of the offenders the regime seeks to over-control. This thesis is support by the well-concealed thesis the critical analyses of academics who have exposed the validity of psychotherapeutics as entirely non-scientific.
For example, William M. Epstein, a clinical social worker and professor at University of Nevada -Las Vegas, writes “Psychotherapy as Religion: The Civil Divine in America,” [http://www.amazon.com/Psychotherapy-As-Religion-Divine-America/dp/0874176786] in which he demonstrates convincingly that “The meaning of the field [of psycho-therapy] is derived not from objective evidence of effectiveness but from the preferences of the culture– a sociological marvel rather than a clinical one”.(4)
What this implies is that the normative/moral dimensions of society has been expropriated from its traditional religious institutions and monopolized by a secular institution which conceals its religiosity behind a spurious mythology of a morally neutral “science”. 
This amounts to an expropriation of meaning by the forces of the dominant economic naturalism—“science” merely means “knowledge”, and there can be a “science” of the now shunned realm of reality called the divine, which has been imprisoned into the non-scientific realm of the subjective opinion. Thus human institutions that relate to the divine are targeted and labeled as “non-scientific”, and therefore rejected as a valid source of moral and ethical discipline, in both the day-to-day practicalities of life and in the sphere of political governance.
In fact, the so-called legal principal of the “separation of church and state”, in operation, serves the merge and conflate the functions of the church (and religion generally) into itself. This phenomena did not happen overnight, but the process has a history, and is taken up in the next section of this essay, which is forthcoming.
The current Massregeln of the United States tends to point its violence on the weakest and most morally suspect of society. In the Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, it upheld the eugenic therapeutics of purifying the whole fabric of society by sterilizing the morons, mentally retarded, racially impure and sexually deviant, with a minimum of administrative due process—given notice and a one-sided hearing. Only the glaring evils of Adolph Hitler wiped out the statutes in the state legislatures. It is a known fact that Hitler modeled his reforms after the genocidal cleansing statutes of California.
 Civil commitment laws are nothing less than euphemized forms of eugenics, seeking to “cleanse” society not only now, but in the future, of all risk of the new genetic peril: the sex offender. The latest “peril” of (mostly male) is added to the perennial list of targeted classes in the prosecution of national warfare. The First World War saw the mass psychological manipulation of the state psychologist to rouse the American public to war against the “German peril”. In World War II it was the “Yellow peril”. In the cold war it was the “Red Peril”. During the drug wars it was the “Black Peril”. Today we see a gender war, creating the target of the “Male Peril”. [See “The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders” by Corey Raybarn Yung, 45 Harv. C. R. –C.L.L. Rev. 435]. Since the vast majority of sex offenders are male, it is not illogical to see the current Massregeln in terms of a military offensive in the broader Gender War. [See “The Feminist War on Crime” by Aya Gruber, 92 Iowa L. Rev. 741]
   
As an “enemy combatant” labeled as a “sex offender”, men convicted of such an offense against the “state” all face civil commitment, especially if we evaluate the phenomena with sophistication. In other words, there are now increasing restrictions attached to the regular penal sentences that constitute indirect and constructive forms of civil commitment in operation, yet not called civil commitment. They are imposed without due process.
Men released from prison are paroled, because the vast majority, no matter the degree of the crime, are given life sentences with possibility of parole. So they are on life time parole, which federally or locally mandated residence restrictions, and are subjected to lengthy sentences for failing to register every three months or being found within three or four football fields locations of any congregations of minors. So, we see the presumption of dangerousness not only upon release. We find the presumption in the pre-trial stage during incarceration, at parole hearings and when granted parole—for the rest of the offenders life.
The other observation with an American homologue is this:
“A second and even more crucial change in the law gave the prosecutor’s office unlimited discretion on whom to prosecute [in violations of public assembly law].”
So, the implication here is twofold:
          That prior to this liberation of state prosecutors from limitations on their discretion, there were more stringent rules in place;
          That the hallmark and measure of how despotic and tyrannical a government is, one looks at the constraints in place on the state prosecutors.
Therefore, we can conclude that there is no greater tyranny and no great despot in the international scene than the USA. Why? Because only in the United States does the government prosecutor have absolute discretion, unfettered by any rules, any oversight, or any power greater than themselves; and this power is not hierarchic and inefficient.
The absolute power is networked in a polycentric grip through 3,144 county district attorneys, plus the huge staffs of 50 state attorney general’s office (not counting territories). Add to that number the massive United States Attorney General’s office spread out through the federal district court system, with each deputy exercising with not a single constraint on their discretion—they have despotic dominion. All that exist is a hollow and meaningless, as well as non-binding, codes of professional ethics, all of which clearly and expressly do not give legal rights or cause of action to hold the network of District Adversaries accountable.
   
Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion
1) Report on the Nevada Appellate and Post-Conviction Project
NJPR editorial policy is to maintain a letter-of-inquiry campaign to follow-up on people, organizations and writers who show concern about the American police state. Recent solicitations to the national office of “Critical Resistance” [at 1904 Franklin Street, Ste. 504, Oakland CA, 94612] produced a national “Pro Bono Legal Resource” list. The only outfit listed for Nevada is:
Nevada Appellate & Post Conviction Project
When this reporter wrote to the address on the Resource list, he was replied to by Michael Pescetta, Chief of the Capital Habeus Corpus Unit at the Federal Public Defender office [at 411 E. Bonneville Avenue, Ste. 250, Las Vegas, NV 89101]. Says Mr. Pescetta “The Project no longer exists. The capital habeus unit of the FPD now does the work that the Project formerly did”.
The guy goes on to say he might be able to provide referral services if a concise clear summary of the case was sent to the Federal Public Defender. Here is the follow-up letter which has been sent to the Federal Public Defender, Michael Pescetta:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter of July 15, 2014. You implied in your letter that you might be able to provide a referral if a clear status summary of the case is provided. I’m just checking to see if I understood you correctly.
Also, I’m enclosing a copy of a letter received from the Justice Brandeis Innocence Project. It identifies a Non-DNA technique of fighting actual innocence cases. As a contributing editor to an all-prisoner written whistleblower newsletter, Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report, I am seeking referral to investigative journalists who might be interested in starting a West Coast Iinnocence Project that serves the horrifying embarrassment of the Nevada criminal justice administration. You can send an email to nvjprudence@gmail.com .”
2) Justice Brandeis Innocence Project
As mentioned above, NJPR has discovered (through the Critical Resistance Resource List) the Innocence Project at Brandeis University. The Project is run by the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at 415 South Street, MS 043, Waltham MA 02454. The Project does not use forensic DNA evidence as all other innocence projects. Also, as all other innocence projects, the Brandeis Project serves an exclusive region without exceptions.
NJPR is attempting to compile a list of investigative journalist in order to organize a Western United States Innocence Project that would utilize the journalistic method, as it is sorely needed.
Let us remind ourselves that the Motherland of the U.S., Merry Old England, has a permanent, government funded innocence commission, which excludes all police and prosecutors from its review board.  Here are some authors of investigative reports on the criminal administration:
karmstrong@seattletimes.com
mauricepossley@gmail.com
bmoushey@pointpark.edu
3) New College Program for Prisoners
New Freedom College is a non-profit school recently established with non-accredited college courses available on a sliding-scale starting at $33.00 per unit ($99. Per 3 unit course), a price which INCLUDES the price of the textbook.
NFC has applied for official accreditation from the nationwide Distance Education and Training Council. The mandatory probationary period for the school began in June 2013 and the school officials fully expect to pass master in June 2015, less than a year from now.
The low price above applies to those who have agreed to pursue a 2 or 4 year degree program. There are fear: Business/Entrepreneur Paralegal Studies Drug and Alcohol Counseling, and English Language.
New Freedom College
1957 West Burnside St. #1660
Portland, OR 97209
4) Sociological Study Underway
The July 2014 Prison Legal News article titled “BOP Grievance System Contributes to Compliance or Defiance of Prisoners” will serve as an inspiration for an upcoming investigative piece on the NDOC grievance system. A contributor to the NJPN whistleblowing project will poll inmate populations and create a statistical analysis of the data collected.
The Editors of NJPN invite contributions from all sources to add to the data set, such as ideas for polling questions and the name and location of sociological prison studies or ideas for future research projects. Contact our public e-mail address:
The data of this study will be situated in comparison to the study “Procedural Justice and Prison: Examining Complaints Among Federal Inmates 2000-2007” by the U.S. Marshalls Service and the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland.
5)  Obamacare Will Cover Prisoners? Uh, No.
It is interesting that prison officials are refusing to disseminate to all prisoners the great hope-creating news that affects the future well-being of prisoners. Inmates are thus once again deprived of the comforting sentiment of hope.
The National CURE outfit reports that “Some [un-named] correctional systems are helping” to get inmates enrolled into Obamacare prior to release. For older invalid inmates, this means release can be to a community nursing home. CURE also reports that the Affordable Care Act also covers, if the state applies, prison and jail inmates who have to go to outside hospitals for intensive care.
It’s a complex law that will be research and report on later. Family and friends can call 1-800-318-2596 for information. That the prison population of America is deprived of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act is an expression of the general policy of the ”deprivation theory” of corrections. To extend this hypothesis further, the exclusion of prisoners from basic care is sure evidence of a government advancement of the religious principle of the “unworthy poor”.
6) Poem: The Man in Me, by John Fenton
Before it’s too late
I saw the man in my house
And he could hardly breath
I pursued the man to desperate end
I’d see him here and there again
Standing there in my refracted dreams
Too scared to bleed, to ‘fraid to fight
Steal away into the night
Where only a thief should have the right
Leaping through every hide-and-find
Ever allusive not quite in my grasp
I finally met the man where I could see
Behind the mirror he wept, the man cries for me.

Advertisements

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report Vol. 3, No 4 – Fall Issue 2013

We received per email the following:

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report
Vol. 3, No 4     “Veritas in Caritatis”              Fall Issue 2013
THEME: “Audi alterum partem”
Listen to the other side!
“Voice of the Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report”

Statement of Purpose:
The NJPR Newsletter reports on current prison conditions, good and bad; more importantly it looks at and evaluates the legal processes and the substantive laws which are designed to keep men in prison: Pre-trial issues, probation and parole policy, sentencing structures, post-conviction law, and most important, the philosophy underlying policy in practice.

The purpose of the NJPR Website is to provide a repository of affidavits, declarations and grievances in Web-Dossiers organized by categories of intuitional behavior. Fundamentally, this is a whistleblowing organization trying to associate with other “transparency” projects at an intrastate, national and global level. We seek to identify patterns which can be utilized by the U.S. Department of Justice.

We invite any resident, and especially judicial officers of the Courts and government Administration to write letters to the NJPR.

Index to this Issue:

Section One: Conditions
1. NNCC Doubles Its Lunch Calorie Intake (Thank God)
2. Pressure letters on “Prison Rape Elimination Act”
3. Kevin Pope Taken to the Hole, or Worse
4. Open Letter to Senator David Parks
Section TWO: Law, Equity and Policy

1.     Politics of Fear and Ignorance, by Anonymous
Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion
1.    Prison Waiting Contest
2.    Job Application Policy Charges
3.    New Second Chance Bill in U.S. Congress
4.    NNCC Drug Experiment as Civil Religion

Subscriptions and Services
Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Newsletter can be delivered via e-mail or snail-mail. We ask you send a copy into NDOC system and your local legislature and press!

E-mail: $3 for 6 months
            $5 for 12 months

Snail-mail: $8 for 6 months
                $15 for 12 months

 Dept. of Justice Issue Dossiers:
Scanning, storage and Electronic Delivery of Dept. of Justice, press, politicians and state administrators.
            .75¢ 1st 10 pages ($7.50)
            .60¢ per page after that

Customized letter: $1 per 250 word



Section One: Conditions

1)   NNCC Food Policy Change—to the Better?

In August 2013 the officials basically doubled the calorie intake of the midday lunch meal by offering two sandwiches, instead of one. Since terminating the hot lunch policy two years (or so) ago, the wardens have carried out the master plan of the NDOC czars in giving out only a “sack lunch” at ALL facilities. Prior to this deprivation, the sack-lunch policy was only at the high security prisons. Now it is everywhere, making all prisons equal in terms of food intake policy. Andre Sakharov once coined the term “convergence theory” that proposes a sociological analogy to the phenomena of water seeking the lowest level possible. He noticed that in totalitarian states the idea of the “good” seems to be reversed, and government actors and leaders are bizarrely inclined or predisposed to emulate the agency leaders who are the least humane, charitable or decent.

The repressive food policy of continued downward trajectory seems to have hit bottom and bounced up a notch. Even the quality of the lunch meats served has improved a bit. Thank you.
2)   Pressure Letters on PREA

Federal law required that all state prisons and local jails must have been in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act. One of the inmates informs NJPR that he wrote to the NGO “Just Detention International” and received a packet of information, [Address: 3325 Wilshire Blvd # 340, Los Angeles CA 90010, info@justdetention.org]. The packet of information included the name of the NDOC point person in charge of supervising this compliance. The inmate proactively wrote a letter to the NDOC staff asking for a breakdown on the specific actions taken by NDOC to comply with the federal law.

Suddenly, posters went up all over the grounds at the NNCC facility, announcing the existence of federal anti-rape law. The proactive inmate received a curt one sentence letter from an unknown official in Las Vegas stating a conclusory announcement that NDOC is in compliance with federal law”. The inmate also sent an FOIA request to the U.S. Dept. of Justice asking for Nevada’s compliance reports, and they have not responded within the mandatory 20 day period.
3)   Kevin Pope Disappears

NJPR writer Kevin Pope has disappeared. The rumors are flying. All that was seen was that an S and E (Security and Escort) officer drove up to the back side of Kevin’s unit in a black van, entered into Kevin’s dorm, where he was taking an afternoon nap, and rousted him, cuffed him up and walked him out to the van and drove away. Some rumors have it Kevin was taken to Ely State prison, which is bad news considering Kevin’s heart condition (triple bypass).

Kevin is the most prolific writ writer on the yard, and the most helpful legal mind on the yard, always ready to stop what he was doing to listen and offer his knowledge.

We won’t repeat hear the police-generated rumors about the charges against Kevin, as that would serve to dignify the likely-to-be untrue content.   

Om-namah-shivaya, Kevin—stay in prayer.
4)   Open Letter to Senator Parks of Nevada

Senator David Parks
PO Box 71887
Las Vegas NV 89170-1887
Dear Senator:
Two recent articles in the Prison Legal News (Nov., 2013) have inspired me to share them with you.

The first article highlights the American practice of non-transparency and suppression of press coverage of criminal justice systems, prisons and the aftereffects. Any “news” that appears is bias based and “criss driven”. In Nevada, the court procedural rules are made without benefit of public scrutiny, the prison regulations of NDOC are exempt from normal rulemaking safeguards, and the behaviors of the parole departments are shielded by layers of bureaucratic secrecy. 

Here is a solution idea: the Ombudsman idea which failed in recent legislation. Both New Jersey and Iowa have an Ombudsman office and Vermont has a Prisoner’s Rights Office, 6 Baldwin St., 4th Floor Montpelier VT 05633, www.defgen.state.vt.us. that takes care of the problems of prisoners and press blackout of prisoner conditions, as such operations could be and should be open to public scrutiny of records and rulemaking processes.

The next article is related: the suppression of accurate data given to the public, in this case to the “pre-trial detainee”. The article highlights a study by the federal Government Accountability Office titled “Indigent Defense: DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible Funding”. The judicial processes of the executive branch agencies are obliged by natural fairness to notify applicants and defendants of civil enforcement of all the citizen’s rights and rules of engagement. Why is this notification abandoned in the criminal justice system?  Defendants are deliberately blinded from the completely suppressed information such as court rules, processes, practices, customs and pertinent statutes, and all rights devolving to the detainee under the law. 

The solution is to apply for an Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program to insure the cost of providing the ADKT 411 “Indigent Defense Standards” to all detainees, and pay for costs of supplying all the notification of the courts laws, rules and basic motions and practices. Only this will level playing field of the adversary system.
Section Two: Law and Equity
1)   Politics of Fear and Ignorance, by an Anonymous prisoner of Nevada
Political Agendas at the Expense of Public Safety

The Inconvenient Truth

The spring 2013 Informational Bulletin Newsletter published by Nevada-CURE reported that NRS 179A.270-290, passed in 1997, required the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History to collect sex offender recidivism data. In 2009, the Central Repository petitioned to have these responsibilities removed through AB 81 apparently because “the agency has neither the staffing nor the technical expertise to address recidivism of sex offenders.” Unfortunately, AB 81 passed.

Interestingly, the State has nearly unlimited resources and manpower to pass sex offender laws and hand out extensive and multiple criminal sentences like free candy in light of an overcrowded penal system and substantial budget constraints. It’s amazing what they can accomplish when they put their minds to it. The Prosecutor’s office does not seem to be begging the Legislature to be relieved of their responsibilities to any degree like the Central Repository did.

It appears the rationale behind relieving the Central Repository from collecting sex offender recidivism data may have been a politically motivated decision made intentionally at the expense of public safety. The agency could have very easily been provided the resources to achieve their objectives.

Any official state-sponsored study on Nevada’s sex offender recidivism could call into question the rational of current sex offender laws and the political agendas of those responsible for passing and/or sponsoring them. Such studies could also reveal inconvenient truths about sex offender recidivism in Nevada that could take the steam out of election year. How can a politician or a judicial candidate compete for office, pass, or adjudicate politically popular laws based on unverified anecdotal assumptions, popular myths, or traditionally perceived conceptions about sex offenders when the truth about such offenders stands as an inconvenient obstacle to the promotion of fear and ignorance needed to persuade naive constituents for their vote and continued support?

Jumping from one unverified myth to another every election year only promotes fear and ignorance at an enormous financial expense while only benefiting a political agenda at the expense of public safety.

Since at least 1959, the United States Supreme Court has observed that education is a deterrent to crime. See Kingsly International Pictures Corp. v. Regeats of Univ. of N.Y., 360 U.S. 684, 689 (1959). Keeping the public uneducated or otherwise ignorant about sex offender recidivism by relieving the Central Repository from collecting data on the subject appears a substantial and affirmative step by our Legislature to promote crime. In other words, a political agenda has taken priority over public safety. Fear and ignorance about Nevada sex offenders remain the status quo.

The Political Agenda at Work
The low recidivism rate of convicted sex offenders oddly remains a secret in today’s society.  In McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002), the United States Supreme Court cites to the DOJ’s 1997 report on Sex Offenses and Offenders for the finding that all sex offenders have a “high risk of recidivism.” Yet this report finds the recidivism rate of released sex offenders for new crimes as 7.7%, and that rate is the second lowest rate of recidivism of all released offenders in the study. Also cited by the High Court for this apparent “high rate of recidivism” is another 1997 DOJ report on Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983. Interestingly, after making an inquiry to the DOJ, no such report was released in 1997.

In Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 103 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court zealously upheld a sex offender registration and notification law by ratifying the Legislature’s findings that all sex offenders, as a class, have a high rate of recidivism without first independently verifying those facts.

Without those unverified legislative findings, it would appear that the sex offender registration and notification laws would have been decreed unconstitutional. That would have called into question the constitutionality of all sex offender registration and notification laws across the country. The entire opinion of Smith v. Doe relied substantially on the unverified or otherwise affirmative misrepresentations about sex offender recidivism.

When a constitutional right is at stake, the usual judicial deference to legislative findings gives way to an exercise of independent judgment of the facts to ascertain whether the legislative body has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S.  622, 666 (1994). Quoting from non-existent DOJ reports and making affirmative misrepresentations of fact from existing reports is not an exercise of independent judgment based on substantial evidence. It appears that a political agenda encouraged a desired result rather than a just and accurate one.

Legislatures and courts around the country are now making serious decisions about laws based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmative misrepresentations about sex offender recidivism. Why must the truth be a pliable commodity in this country and be distorted to fit political agendas? The politics of fear and ignorance remain the order of the day.

Causes and Effects of Sexual Abuse

There are “correlations between childhood sexual abuse and later problems such as substance abuse, dangerous sexual behaviors or dysfunction, inability to relate to others on an interpersonal level, and psychiatric illness.” Kennedy v. Louisiana, 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 568-69 (2008)(Alito, J., dissenting)(quoting authoritive reports on child sexual abuse). “Victims of child rape are nearly 5 times more likely than nonvictims to be arrested for sex crimes and nearly 30 times more likely to be arrested for prostitution.” Id.

There are legions of medical and scientific studies that empirically demonstrate that sexually abused children have a high disposition to commit sexually based crimes in the future. It is not uncommon for a convicted sex offender to have a history of being sexually abused as a child.

Without thinking twice, many in our society would find it absurd for a convicted sex offender to babysit a child or run a day care center. Would you take your chances with an adult who was a victim of childhood sexual abuse? They do not register and background checks will not likely provide a clue to their potential to commit a sexual offense. They are not subject to any degree of oversight. The heightened potential of a victim committing a sexual offense is an inconvenient fact that cannot be lightly disregarded if public safety, victimization, and crime prevention are to be taken seriously.

How many politicians expect to get your vote or support if they suggest or propose victims register to prevent future sexual offenses or to otherwise promote public safety? If registration apparently works so well for convicted sex offenders, then why not for victims if public safety is of central concern? Since registration is not a form of punishment according to a substantial weight of judicial authority, then there should be no problem. Right?

A Solution

Unlike convicted sex offenders, victims of sexual abuse are never required to register despite their heightened potential to commit a sexual offense. If there is a genuine concern for public safety and future sexual offenses behind registration and notification laws as authoritatively held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, then it would be perfectly rational to require victims to register. To hold otherwise would compromise public safety and promote future sexual offenses followed by more victims. Why wait for a victim to commit a sexual offense and create new victims before requiring them to register? That’s illogical and only promotes a continuing offense cycle of new victims followed by future potential offenders. That kind of cycle needs to be stopped!

Any concerns for privacy over registration and notification requirements are substantially outweighed by the government’s legitimate objective of public safety. I have yet to see any court relieve registration requirements for privacy concerns.

Victims should be relieved that registration and notification requirements do not promote the goals of punishment and are purely regulatory pursuant to Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. at 105-06. Furthermore, a conviction is not required to impose a civil regulatory law. Id. At 113 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)(observing that a conviction is not a necessary predicate for civil commitment).

It is true that not all victims commit sexual offenses in the future. The same is also true with convicted sex offenders. In any case, registration and notification requirements are imposed on all sex offenders regardless of their individual risk to reoffend. Doe, 538 U.S. at 104. There is no reason why this same requirement cannot be imposed on all victims of childhood sexual abuse since public safety is of central concern.

If victims have a high potential to commit sexual offenses based of empirically accurate and verified research but are not required to register, then the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution requires convicted sex offenders be treated the same. If not, then the public safety rational that is at the very basis of registration and notification laws are truly pretextual to an agenda towards using legislative and judicial agendas to punish convicted sex offenders; a rational that plainly cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny on several fronts. Given the pervasive attitudes toward convicted sex offenders, it would be naive to assume otherwise.

If our government chooses not to collect data on sexual offenses but yet continues to legislate and make fundamental decisions about sexually based crimes and laws, then they are willfully navigating in the dark. They have chosen to disregard your safety at the expense of their political agenda of fear and ignorance. The citizens and residents of this State should be outraged!

Ron S.
A Nevada prisoner

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion
1)   Prison Writing Contest Info
Send an SASE (self-addressed stamped envelope) for submission guidelines:

Vidahlia Press and Publishing House
800 Town and Country Blvd.
City Center, Ste. 300
Houston TX 77024

Submission Deadline is February 1, 2014

Another possible publication outlet is:

Criminal Justice Journalists
c/o Dept. of Criminology
University of Pennsylvania
McNeil Building Ste. 483
3718 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6286
2)   Job Application Policy Changes

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (C.U.R.E.) reports in their recent newsletter report two recent positive policy changes for prisoners leaving prison.

First, in April of 2012, the United States has prohibited private corporate policy which acts as a “blanket denial of employment” to ex- felons. This mandate was issued by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) says the CURE people. For information:

EEOC Library/Reading Room
131 M Street NE
Washington DC 20507

Second, on October 30, 2013, Target Corporation modified its job application forms to remove the criminal history questions. NJPR will investigate into the creation of national and local employers who have followed suit, and demand a policy statement from Nevada officials.
3)   New Second Chance Bill in U.S. Congress
In April of 2008, President Bush signed the Second Chance Act authorizing federal grants to state punishment authorities “to improve outcomes for returning to society” after incarceration. The response of our Glorius Leader in Nevada was to cut out college programs at NNCC, stop the horticulture programs, put a stop to Alcoholics Anonymous, shut down law libraries, shut down regular libraries in the units, shut down the veterans of Vietnam Association activities and shut down the public-speaking training club of Toastmasters International. The Congress of the United States, after five years, has introduced S. 1690 and HR 3465 to continue funding the practices and policies that help prisoners.
     There is a word that means “deriving pleasure from cruelty”. Psychobabblers call it sadism, the religious tradition calls it diabolical. To deny a man the benefit of enjoying a legal right offered by the statutes of the United States is most certainly a cruelty. One wonders at the source of the Glorus Leader’s cruelty, sadism or Satanism?
4)   NNCC Drug Experiment as Human Sacrifice of the Civil Religion: An Interview

An article in Nevada CURE asked for responses to the question “Is Forced Medication an NDOC Problem?” Recently, several participants of the “psych ward”, Unit 6, were kicked out, so NJPR asked them some questions, after they read the CURE article.

NJPR: So, is forced meds a problem?
Griz: Yeah, it is a problem.
NJPR: How do they “force” you to take meds?
Griz: They take you to the hole in 7B.
NJPR: OK, they cuff you up and take you to the hole—how do they actually force the meds on you?
Griz: They come and “extract” you, hit you with shields, taze you, thank they force a shot of Haldol into your ass.
NJPR: Who is “they”?
Griz: The SERT team. [ed., Special Emergency Response Team]
NJPR: Tell me about he federal experimental drug program you mentioned. How do you know its funded federally?
Griz: State ain’t got no money. They cut our food back. How else can staff bring in fancy new flat screen TV’s and all these special training videos?
NJPR: So you’re never seen any actual documents?
Griz: Well, not really. Just the waiver forms.
NJPR: Do they tell you what drugs they are giving you?
Griz: yeah, they do. But they don’t tell you what the side effects are. We ask them to tell us, but they won’t answer us. They say they are too busy to talk about things.
NJPR: Why were you kicked out?
Griz: A misunderstanding I was having with another inmate—we were not physically fighting. We just went down to his cell to talk things out, and this guy’s cellmate misinformed staff about it. She blew it out of proportion.
NJPR: Who is she?
Griz: *****, the psych that has been there the last twenty years.

There is clear need for Freedom of Information Act demands made, but where does one start? Is it the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Justice? Would the prison officials respond to inquiry?

HEIL HITLER, HEIL NDOC!

Corrections department flouts new law requiring autopsies for inmates who die in custody

 In: Las Vegas Sun, Dec. 16, 2013
By: Ana Ley

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report (summer 2013)

Vol. 3, No 6    
“Veritas in Caritatis”            
Summer Issue 2013

THEME: “Audi alterum partem” – Listen to the other side!

“Voice of the Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report”

E-mail:  nvjprudence@gmail.com  
Website: http://nvjprudence.wordpress.com

Statement of Purpose:

The NJPR Newsletter reports on current prison conditions, good and bad; more importantly it looks at and evaluates the legal processes and the substantive laws which are designed to keep men in prison: Pre-trial issues, probation and parole policy, sentencing structures, postconviction law, and most important, the philosophy underlying policy in practice.

The purpose of the NJPR Website is to provide a repository of affidavits, declarations and grievances in Web-Dossiers organized by categories of intuitional behavior. Fundamentally, this is a whistleblowing organization trying to associate with other “transparency” projects at an intrastate, national and global level. We seek to identify patterns which can be utilized by the U.S. Department of Justice.

We invite any resident, and especially judicial officers of the Courts and government Administration to write
letters to the NJPR.

Index to this Issue:

Section One: Conditions

1. The Death of Scott Hyatt- by Kevin Pope

2. Level System Report

3. Parole Board Inquisition and Serial Sentencing

Section TWO: Law, Equity and Policy

1. Justice Procedures and Government Concealment: Policy of Secrecy

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion

1. Denial of Access to Chapel Facilities Suit

2. Update on 12-Step Programs

3. Veteran’s Activities

Subscriptions and Services

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Newsletter can be delivered via e-mail or snail-mail. We ask you send a copy into NDOC system and your local legislature and press!

E-mail: $3 for 6 months
            $5 for 12 months
Snail-mail: $8 for 6 months
                $15 for 12 months

Dept. of Justice Issue Dossiers:

Scanning, storage and Electronic Delivery of Dept. of Justice, press, politicians and state administrators.

  .75¢ 1st 10 pages ($7.50)
            .60¢ per page after that
  Customized letter: $1 per 250 word

——————–
Section One: Conditions

1) A Kinder Gentler Genocide, Kevin Donald Pope

Scott Hyatt, of Unit 2, Dorm B-3, who was not under death penalty or the “other” death penalty, life-in-prison, laid in a near comatose condition. He was recently diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia, a terminal illness, but curable by a marrow transplant.

He was told by prison that the treatment was “not available”. I helped him write letters begging for compassionate release. The prison did send him to Carson/Tahoe Hospital for treatment, but it failed so he was sent back to prison.

According to Scott, the only way to stay alive was regular blood transfusions, six (6) pints at a time. Two days before he died, Scott told me he was given only 2 pints of transfusion. That night he laid in a near comatose state in his dorm and began to bleed out of his orifice. He died two days later.

The prison staff and doctors are in the main honest people trying their best. Dr. Gedney is, in my book, an unsung hero who saved my life in the past. However, they must work against the policy of genocide—insurmountable odds marshaled against them by the administrators above them, hiding like stalkers in their shadowy offices of power over life and death. There are staff who form power cliques who sadistically delight in carrying out the policies of disdain and hatred, behind the mask of “legality”. I call this the hidden agenda of discontent and malice, intending to create havoc by making human pain through Undue Stresses for the sake of civil police-state idols of calculated efficiency, cost-effectiveness and vengeance.

[Editor’s note: In earlier editions, Fall 2011, we were puzzled that the compassionate release law which used to be in the hands of the Parole Commissioners at NRS 213.1217 was repealed. Mister Pope informs us that this power was merely transferred by NRS 209.3925 to the hands of the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections, which is to jump from the frying pan to the fire.]

2) Level System Report

In 2001, the legislature of Nevada passed an enabling statute that stated the NDOC Director “may” implement a level system in his facilities. All of the prisons in Nevada began to do so, where the custody level was rated “high” or “medium high”. NNCC, a medical yard and a medium custody warehouse, created a level system operating procedure (OP) but it was never suitable for a medium yard. In June of 2012, Administrative Regulation 516, Level System, was signed by Director Cox. The NDOC is exempt from all due process safeguards, such as evidentiary hearings on record, public notice, attendance and commentary. The ONLY check on the arbitrary and capricious rule is the prisoner lawsuit. It is policy of the state of Nevada that citizens of prior bad acts and public convictions are subject to civil legal sanctions that act as shields to the erosion of state police power to be capricious and arbitrary.

The system of levels is a policy of undue pressure. Just today, an intimate associate of ours, a man on the yard as a reward for years of good behavior, snapped. This man was commuted from death sentence, to life without. He struggles with immense sorrow for his liberty. This new system locks him down 3 days out of 4, deprives him of all human dignity of hope, personal growth—then expect him to take “ownership” while the police state will NOT see its own errors.

3) The “Perfection Clause” and Substantive Due Process: Nevada’s Secret Tribunals—Psych Panels/Boards

 The attack of the originalist movement in legal circles aims at increasing the unilateral police power of the state by the reduction of immunities and privileges of citizens accused or convicted of crime. The originalists (Justices Scalia and Thomas) are rooted in a secularized biblolotry derived from the twisted sola scriptura doctrine of Martin Luther in the 1500’s. Most fundamentalists are harmlessly duped to believe that no good, no truth and no beauty exists outside the four-corners of the bible. Scalia and Thomas are almost Constitutional fundamentalists—if a principle of law cannot be found in the letters of the document it’s no law at all. They scorn the intellectual virtue of inference, where such an inference was not also left behind in the historical records of the framers spoken or written word. This kind of jurisprudence is called legal positivism, the tool of tyrants and totalitarian systems. The U.S. Constitution, with its clause of perfection implies that the support of tyrants was not the goal of the American Fathers. It says, “We the people… in order to form a more perfect union…” means a historical commitment to moving away from the evils of total state power to the point of a fascist state wearing perfume of sanctity. Lady Liberty smells like a fancy whore.

Nevada thinks “perfection” means creating secret tribunals that mentally torture the condemned, and perpetrate the practice of “serial sentencing”.

The psych-panels, which are described below, were hidden behind the Regal Decree’s of Mr. Brian Sandoval back when he was Attorney General in 2003. He issued the sinister law that “Because the Psych Panel functions as an arm of the sentencing court (judiciary) and are not subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.” [Open Meeting Law Opinion, (OMLO 2003-21/A6 File No. 03-019].

This opinion is in the favor of the accused in a back-handed way, because it implies that those subject to the psych panel are entitled to demand due process privileges such as legal counsel present, rights of rebuttal, evidentiary rules. Of course the only intention of Brian Sandoval was to conceal the activities of the Psych Panel, and prevent the public from perceiving what really goes on—the psychological torture of a new hearing which is successive to the first sentencing hearing years before. If the Psych Panel is a judicial body, rather than an administrative body, it is due to provide the level of procedural protections required by the
Constitution.

At least that is a claim that could be made. The odd thing is that the Administrative Regulation 813.01 (8) states the Psych Panel is “Subject to Open Meeting Law.” Most men who have gone to the Psych Panel and Parole Board would testify that the behavior of both the Panel and Board members is often that of a brow-beating judicial torturer-interrogator. All evidentiary rules are thrown out the window and both Tony Corda and psychologist and Robert Schofield have been knowing to yell and berate inmates for events of childhood.

Luckily, the Psych Panel has been “reformed”; the bad news is that the reform is merely a concentration of all power to inflict pain is vested in one man and one tool of inquisition—an actuarial device used in the insurance industry; Senate Bill No. 104 has disbanded the 3-Person Panel, effective July 1, 2013. Instead, the Psych Panel powers becomes included in the powers of the Director of prisons, Greg Cox, who will send a psych tech over with an “accepted standard of assessment”. Further, the state will not “take ownership” for any future abuses, mistakes or errors in such assessments, [213.1099-3]!

Section Two: Law and Equity

1) Justice Procedures and Government Concealments State Policy of Secrecy

The last issue carried a review of a law review article by Rachel Barkow, “Separation of Powers and the Criminal Law”, (58 Stan. L. Rev. 989). The article begins to expose the myth to the public, which all prisoners know from first hand experience: there is no true ADVERSARY SYSTEM. That phrase is a slogan parroted by district attorneys, and all other “stakeholders” in the system, to CONCEAL the truth of a continental inquisitorial system in place. That means we citizens are tried by an official of the executive branch—a whole army of officials, called the “Criminal Justice Community” (CJC). The problem is, they make up the rules as they go along— without oversight!

For example, court rules. The most crucial part of any action, process or creation is the beginning. In the criminal justice system, the beginning is the police investigation. That’s why over the years the Supreme Court of the United States began to make rules with its famous Miranda v. Arizona case, requiring the announcement of rights to the suspected citizen.

Judicially, the beginning is the Grand Jury indictment or the Complaint filed by the local attorney or attorney general at the Justice Courts (in Nevada, at least). Yet, for many many years, there were no Justice Court Rules! So certainly there wererules, but only the administrators knew what they were.  Unbelievably, Reno Justice Court did not publish rules until 2012, and Sparks (and the rest of rural Nevada) did not publish them until 2013!

So, like the ADKT 411 “standards” for professional defense lawyers, these rules need to be actively promulgated by the local courts, so that defendant-citizens know how to fight back!

In Europe, such rules are not kept secret, and as a result the incarceration rate is 76% lower, Will America do this? No. will Nevada? HELL no.

District Court rules have long been available, but not to pretrial detainees. Even so the rules are skewed to favor the un-detained and prejudice those held without bail. The response times, for example, don’t give the prisoner a fair hearing. State attorney’s are allowed to file responses to prisoner petitions on the day of the hearing, so that the prisoner cannot respond. This is due to the special viciousness of American state-religion, the social nationalism made famous in the abuses totalitarian-fascist regimes in World War II Germany. That is why the European inquisitorial system is so dangerous—it is highly subject to abuse without protective oversight.

What we have today in America is cogently sinister. It has a inquisitorial system hiding behind a façade, a lying myth, that it s an “adversarial system”. Because of the logical fallacies which seem to be genetically bred into Americans, they believe anything that comes out of the four-corners of the television, radio, newspaper and Smart phones. So did the Garman’s of Nazi Germany.

The early, critical stages of the Grand Jury, and preliminary hearing are not protected by adversarial rules—they are considered “administrative” in nature, inquisitorial. When Europe let go of oversight at such inquisitions, it burnt 12 million Jew. When America allowed such protections to the citizen go, it built up the biggest prison gulag the world has ever seen. Only free people, enslaved to their blissful stupidity, cannot SEE the crisis. Amazingly, even Nevada prisoners are lulled into blissful stupidity—by design. Nevada is
one of the few state systems that allow private TV. Take them away, like they do in Ely and lock-down units, you get angry fighters.

Unless the American CJC corrects its behavior of denying access to knowledge of legal processes, the system will keep expanding until it implodes.

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion

1) Denial of Religions Rights to Those Who Require Sanctuary Space

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) can be supposedly accessed by any person, and the NJPR has reviewed a prison lawsuit by Dirk Klinke, Kevin Pope and J. Quintero, Cs. No. 3:13-cv-00008-mmD-VPC.

The prisoners attempted to bring a class action suit for alleged NNCC Facility deprivations and systemic NDOC deprivations of constitutional privileges.

Klinke claims that low level officials circumvent the Prison Director’s and Prison Commission’s administrative regulations that state hospitalized and punished prisoners in the Unit Seven segregation units by “round-filing” inmate requests (throwing them in the trash can) Klinke has been told he will be moved off the yard to another facility. Pope filed for discriminatory animus by prison guards to his Siddha Yoga gurus.

Quintero filed for religious deprivation of the sanctuary space in the multi-purpose facility that provides legal, religious and physical exercise services; he lost the prison custom of giving access to Catholic rosary devotees to the three Chapel rooms under the supervisory eye of the camera system and the neighboring law librarian and coach. The action was severed by Judge Miranda M. Du, meaning each plaintiff had to file separate pleadings.

2) Update on 12-Step Programs

Last issue notified Nevada officials and news outlets that not only was Alcoholics Anonymous completely “eradicated” the institutional sadism of those officials, it (AA.) was reduced (or raised) to a privilege reserved only to a particular class of NNCC inmate, those who participate in the Senior Structured Living Program.

We at the NJPN received a garbled e-mail that seemed to be trying to imply the issue raised threatened the well-being of SSLP members, and that the program and its founder were trying to do good. Nowhere in our article did we question the goodness of keeping AA as a prison program—we stated that creating a caste
system is unfair to those in the lower class, and that sequestering it to ONE unit is violative of AA. principles themselves.

At any rate, AA is now available for two additional units, No’s 3 and 5 now get visits from an “outside” sponsor 1 day per week.

May the ghost of Al Garcia haunt the wardens. This all boils down to the reduction of access to the prison facilities begun with this level system—prior to the “official beginning”, the college classrooms in Mayberry were closed, and the meeting rooms of the Gym/Chapel/Law Library Complex were made off-limits.

3) Veteran’s Activities

First, the Vietnam Veteran’s Association (VVA) got told they could not provide refreshments to their members at their monthly meetings. Then, they got told they cannot hold “fundraisers” any more—one of the only delights of the year for NNCC inmates was to get “street food” once or twice a year, and a summer barbecue. Then, the administration said it could not pass out a Christmas eve goodie bag to the evil convicts anymore. Then the Glorius Leaders said the VVA had to close their office.
A medical transfer from Lovelock said the last fundraiser there was in 2012.
They stopped at NNCC in 2011.

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report – Vol. 2, No 4 Spring Issue 2012 (published in September of 2012)

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report
Vol. 2, No 4 “Veritas in Caritatis” Spring Issue 2012

THEME: “Audi alterum partem” – Listen to the other side!

“Voice of the Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report”

E-mail: nvjprudence@gmail.com
Website: nvjprudence.wordpress.com

Statement of Purpose:
The NJPR Newsletter reports on current prison conditions, good and bad; more importantly it looks at and evaluates the legal processes and the substantive laws which are designed to keep men in prison: Pre-trial issues, probation and parole policy, sentencing structures, post-conviction law, and most important, the philosophy underlying policy in practice.

The purpose of the NJPR Website is to provide a repository of affidavits, declarations and grievances in Web-Dossiers organized by categories of intuitional behavior. Fundamentally, this is a whistleblowing organization trying to associate with other “transparency” projects at an intrastate, national and global level. We seek to identify patterns which can be utilized by the U.S. Department of Justice.
We invite any resident, and especially judicial officers of the Courts and government Administration to write letters to the NJPR.

Index to this Issue:

Section One: Conditions

1. The Retrogression of NNCC Court Access

2. Report on Parole and Probation Practices

Section TWO: Law, Equity and Policy

On Motions to Correct Illegal Sentences

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion

Poem: Inmate Gratitude by Terrence Sweeney

Subscriptions and Services

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Newsletter can be delivered via e-mail or snail-mail. We ask you send a copy into NDOC system and your local legislature and press!

E-mail: $3 for 6 months
$5 for 12 months
Snail-mail: $8 for 6 months
$15 for 12 months

Dept. of Justice Issue Dossiers:
Scanning, storage and Electronic Delivery of Dept. of Justice, press, politicians and state administrators.
.75¢ 1st 10 pages ($7.50)
.60¢ per page after that
Customized letter: $1 per 250 word

Section One: Conditions

1) Law Library Closure at NNCC

About two years ago, the Administration threw out two thousand hardbound volumes of Supreme Court and Pacific Reporters, claiming the computer access would adequately replace the loss. The prison “saved” no money in the wanton destruction, but probably are losing money through the high cost of digital services through Mathew Bender & Company, Inc. On top of this are the exorbitant printing costs for the hundreds of thousands of pages to replace the pre-printed volumes that would have lasted a hundred years. What kind of moronic fiscal responsibility is that?

Now, in early August, the law library has shut its doors entirely. The prison clerks are not trained in the law and no arrangement for access to trained professionals has been made. Already, copies of personal criminal proceedings are being carried by PRISONER law clerk assistants, by hand from the units to the copy machine in the library and back. This has already caused problems because inmate petitioners cannot be present to supervise the copying of complex pleadings with many exhibits.

2) Report on Parole and Probation

Mike X. is over 60 years old. Some years back, during the course of the break up of his marriage and loss of a family business, he was arrested for sale of a small amount of drugs to an under-cover agent in Reno, Nevada. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to drug court in lieu of prison. The expense of the alternative is borne by the convict to the extent that Mike, who was also without a car, was unable to meet his obligation. He absconded to California, where he had friends and a job waiting for him. He did well for a year or so then was injured and ended up in a convalescent hospital. He was taken custody by local law enforcement, taken to local jail and picked up by Nevada law enforcement and transferred back.

At his hearing, the District Attorney offered drug Court again, but John was in worse condition than before, so he refused and chose to serve his 2-5 year sentence in prison. The judge so ordered, and John, still injured, spent his first three or four months in the prison infirmary. He went to the main units for about three months, then had his first parole hearing.

His “parole plan” for the Parole Board Hearing was to go back to the convalescent home in California and/or to his friends there. He was approved for parole on this plan.

After the hearing, he was informed by his unit officer that they would not release him to California and the reason given was “they don’t do that anymore”. Eventually he was released to Safe Harbor Half-way House at 469 9th Street in Reno, Nevada.

The State, says John, pays the first three weeks of the program fees, and then the rest is up to the parolee. John had been given 29$ upon his release, and the program costs 650$ month. The program, according to John, offered three meals and a bed, and nothing else. Had he been able to stay on his sentence would have expired in January 2011. He was unable to get his disability payments reactivated within the three weeks he had his rent paid by the State of Nevada; the program began to ask for their money, and John was also bound to pay a 30$ per month Parole fee, and a 50$ drug evaluation fee for a psychoanalyst report. The program supplied the card of a professional analyst he was to have hired. John, having no income became overwhelmed and decided to turn himself into the parole officer assigned to his case and lie to the officer so he would get “violated” and taken back to prison.

John’s assigned officer was not in when he arrived. The duty officer that day was assigned to talk to him. John informed her he had taken vicodin’s. She questioned him for about 5 minutes then had another officer came and cross-examined him. They did not drug test him. He was in County Jail in about 2 hours. He was there 2 months. His assigned Probation Officer, Ms Simon Tachi, came to see him to have him sign paperwork. John did not have his required “revocation hearing” until he was in prison for three weeks not while he was at County Jail.

At his Revocation Hearing, John fessed up to what he had done and they reinstated his parole and gave him until April 1 2010 to go back to them and supply them with a new “parole plan”. John is considering that it would be safer for him to spend the remainder of his sentence in prison, as he cannot thrive in the State of Nevada as he has no family, no friends, and no income. If he “expires” his sentence, he would be free from the Nevada system and could travel back to California. John is a professional grade graphic artist.

Section Two: Law and Equity

1) On Motions to Correct Illegal Sentences

Notes on the Use of Edwards for Governmental Evasion of Motions to Correct Illegal Sentences in the State of Nevada.

The Executive branch at local and central levels has convinced the judicial branch that the convicted and incarcerated citizens of the region cannot succeed in finding relief under the statutory “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence” (NRS 176.555) UNLESS “it is illegal for being at variance with the controlling sentencing statute” Edwards v. State.

This controlling principle is derived from non-9th Federal District case law. The prisoners at NNCC recently received copies of three non-9th District cases which are cited by the Edwards court to support its pro-government stance of preferential treatment of prosecuting attorney. We will discuss these three cases and show how the local executive lawyers of the government have hoodwinked the judicial branch, and constructed a law that magnifies its own power and vitiates the individual citizen.

This is done by omitting from judicial consciousness the entire law of the underlying cases, and presenting to them only those portions prejudicially favorable to the government. This reductive prevarication creates a sham appearance of the American claim to the rule of law and is a major contribution to prison over-population, because it is a “legal” weapon in the war-on-crime denial of the lower courts, who trusted the statist executive branch lawyers twisted cutting up at the case law to insure its own “victory” at the high cost of injustice to Z. and thousands of others.

Prince v. U.S., 432 A2d 720

Z. was denied his motion to correct his outrageously unfair sentence because it fell within the range of maximum penalty allowed for by legislated statute, as stated in Edwards above. The implied message is that there are NO OTHER CIRCUSTANCES which give the judge cause to change the sentence. This is a fabrication.

The government lawyers derived this legal standard of Nevada from Prince v. U.S., 432 A2d 720, which (the lawyers tell the court) says

“A sentence is a nullity if it is illegal for being at variance with the controlling sentencing statute”. 

What the government forgets to tell its local judges is that Prince is a case of the government filing a motion to correct a sentence. The judge in this case departed downward, giving a lighter sentence than called for by the statutes. The government had to file the motion two times before the judge would get it right and impose the ten year sentence. This Prince court relies on Bozza v. U.S. 67sct 645 which points out that “an excessive [broken off]

The case of Z.

We are going to scaffold this discussion upon a live case that probably represents the situation of thousands of illegally sentenced men in the industrial justice system.

Z. was driving in Las Vegas and was typically profiled as a black suspect; he refused to stop for about 30 seconds, but never sped up past miles per hour. He was stopped and searched, which produced two small packets of personal use drugs, one cocaine, one heroin. Z claimed there was no “probable cause” and a public pretender file a motion, and the court colluded with the government to come up with a fabricated police-car computer-generated document that provided a false-positive “cause”.

The defendant was offered a penalty of about four years prison with good time considered. He exercised his constitution right to a trial and paid the jury trial penalty, and eventually got a sentence enhancement on the bifurcation of two charges out of the one act of drug possession and received sixty years. Then, being placed in one of the southern Nevada lock-down prisons where true access to the courts is denied systematically he became time-barred on his Habeus Corpus.
He has been attempting a Motion to Correct since 2011, was denied and now is attempting a Motion to Reconsider the sentence should be “corrected” as well.

Now since the Government’s own stated aims are to seek justice in the abstract and not mere victory over its own citizens. It failed in its obligations to make concessions that excessive sentences can be requested by those convicted of them and the conditions under which this can occur. This failure of the government implies a hidden agenda of winning at all costs, as is if the adversarial system justifies the idea of equity and fairness inimical. So the question of how a prisoner convict can use this Motion to Correct Sentence begs to be answered.

Allen v. U.S. 495 A2d 1145 (D.C. App. 1985)

Another statist interpretation found in the Edwards case which is used to foreclose the Motion from effective use by citizens against the government is the argument that the Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence can be only brought to fruition if the conviction is presumed to be valid, and that the court cannot entertain arguments of alleged errors in the proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence. Only when the judge departs from the statutory perimeters can this motion be used—or so says the state. This Allen case builds on Heflin v. U.S. 79sct 451Robinson v. U.S. 454 A 2d 810.

The third non-9th Circuit case which is the foundation of the repressive Edwards case is the Robinson case, cited above. Now, Robinson relies on U.S. v. Ramsey 655 F2d 398 (1981), which reveals two distinct kinds of illegal sentences: one in which is illegal on its face due to various reasons, and one which is the sentence is imposed in an illegal manner.

Nevada bureaucrats have weaved a public lie that motions to correct applies only when there is a defect in the imposition of statutorily correct sentence (either too much or too little punishment). But we’ve shown above a sentence is also illegal when there is no evidence to support a conviction and the judge fails to catch it. One example is the situation when the government “pyramids” sentences by sneaking in a conspiracy charge on top of the charge of consummating the conspired act—they should merge to one act. Or as in the case of Z, one act of possession of illegal drugs is punished as two acts even though there is no additional evidence to separate the act into two—like time, place or action.

The second way a sentence becomes illegal as described in the underlying Robinson case is the manner in which it is impose of which is a correction of a sentence made illegal by a government “pyramiding of penalties” by creating two counts of guilt for one act.

Now in Allen, the government does not pyramid, and they have proven two acts. But the case clearly defines a situation when a sentence can be illegal in other ways than just being statutorily incorrect. The Nevada Edwards case omits this discussion from the record and carefully redacts the Allen language to find words to fit its argument for statist domination over all the players in the “justice community”.

It is clear that judges themselves, and certainly not state-hired “defender” read the underlying case law to find the whole truth. It is a little know fact how the indigent and poor are routinely denied access to the non- Nevada and non-9th Circuit cases at the facility law libraries, and the Supreme Court will not supply such law except to the WEALTHY inmate who can pay. The rule which the underlying Allen case makes is that a sentence is illegal on its face when it creates two counts and two punishments from a single act, as in the case of Z…

This applies to Z because he was punished for exercising his rights to trial by not only sentencing him twice for one act, but he got a quantum leap of punishment by getting the “habitual criminal enhancement”, and received a potential death sentence of 60+ years! Remember, the government offered him years!

Now, the state of Nevada statute has a ritual procedure that must be met not just substantially but strictly. If the government indicts by Grand Jury and they decide to enhance, they must give a “notice” of such to the Grand Jury and defendant. If the government charges by information then seeks enhancement, the government must Amend the complaint. Not give “notice” to Grand jury, but Amend complaint.

The underlying Robinson case, the court establishes absolute strictness to this ritual. The dissent of Mack says it best:

“The commission of this procedural error can well result in the loss substantive right… since the legal requirement for imposition of a sentence was not met here… the court did not have authority to impose the [enhanced] sentence”.

Z. got a “notice”, not an amended complaint so his sentence is illegal for two reasons: double jeopardy and improper imposition of sentence both of which can be addressed under a Motion to Correct on Illegal Sentence.

However, one cannot see this in the case law of Edwards in Nevada. One has to read all the underlying case law to discover the oppressive violence by virtue of the Executive branch lawyers covering up the whole record, concealing the truth, duping the judges and publics, and reductively obscuring the parts of the rules of law which will diminish government power, and enhance the possibility of victory for citizens in the Anglo-American adversarial system.

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion

1) Poem:

Inmate Gratitude

Each day you work an angel in my life
Perhaps one day you’ll save me from a knife.
Amid the ridicule you keep me safe from harm
When gangs attempt to try and break my arm
Ready you stand when needed by my side
Even solace you give the night I cried
Comfort when friends and family fell ill and died
Your presence gives no place for evil to hide.
Your days are never simple and always rough
Surrounded by things who try to huff and puff
Challenged by cons to see of your up to snuff
One hardly ever thinks to thank enough.
Often fools, they throw you one more curve
They try so hard to work your final nerve
They blame you first for sentences they serve
Let this be just a thanks that you deserve.

PAX

Petition for Appointment of Guardian outside the Nevada Dept of Corrections: plz help Mr Tragale

From: Nevada-Cure’s blog and added the petition text:

On August 20th 2012 Nevada-Cure sent this message out via email about retaliation against a prisoner held in NNCC (Carson City, NV). It appears Prisoner TRAGALE is being retaliated against for trying to help another prisoner, who is blind, mentally ill and unable to care for himself, have a guardian appointed to the prisoner to help him with his needs. 
Philip Tragale has asked the Courts for a Guardian and/or Lawyer to protect prisoner Daniel Stenner who is blind and mentally handicapped. Mr Tragale filed the text here underneath to the District Court in Nevada on June 6th 2012.

We have another case Mr Tragale filed which contains complaints about a few employees of NDOC who are alleged to be abusive towards prisoners. We will soon post that case here too.

Please write to your Legislator and Director Cox of NDOC to ask them to have an independent commission look into these alleged abuses, and have them stopped.

NV-CURE has not conducted an independent evaluation of Mr. Tragale’s claims.  However, such an investigation must be conducted by a person that is fair and impartial.  The truth and actual events must be made public and scrutinized by the Legislature. Please e-mail / write NDOC Director COX and members of the NV Legislature with your views and opinions on this matter.
Thank you.

Filed: 6-7-12
Case no. 12GRD0003D1B
Dept. no. 1
In the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
In and for Carson City
*****
In Re: Daniel Stenner

Petition for Appointment of Guardian outside the Nevada Dept of Corrections

Comes now, Petitioner, Philip Tragale, and requests this Court to appoint a guardian for inmate Daniel Stenner, outside the NV Dept. of Corrections to protect inmate Stenner from the immoral, neglectful and abusive actions and practices of NDOC staff as will more fully appeare herein.

Petitioner, Philip Tragale, is an inmate, #62163, incarcerated at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City who has on three (3) occasions, for approx. one (1) week on each occasion witnessed the care of inmate Stenner. Petitioner now brings what he has witnessed before the Court for the Court to decide if action need be taken.

Daniel Stenner is blind and severely mentally handicapped to the point that he cannot do anything without assistance.

Petitioner believes Daniel Stenner is being abused for the following reasons:

1)      Daniel is never walked around or exercised in any way; he is removed from his cell to be fed and showered and done so in a special chair with wheels.

2)      Daniel is never taken outside for sun or fresh air.

3)      Daniel receives no therapy or rehabilitative training.

4)      Daniel is ignored, left in his cell naked and only paid attention to when he urinates (not in the toilet) or starts to scream, cry out or slap himself in the face and then he is told to lay down or he is offered food which is withheld for hours.

5)      Daniel is not given a radio or tv to keep him company or for mental stimulation nor does anyone spend time with Daniel just to try to engage him in conversation.

6)      Daniel’s meals are left to sit on the counter, in the open air, uncovered, for hours before it is fed to him cold, congealed, and dried out and only after hours of Daniel crying out and being told he’ll be fed soon over and over again.

7)      On one occasion Petitioner heard and saw Correctional Officer Cardella approach Daniel’s cell and in a low voice so no one could hear tell Daniel “You’re a F…ing B..ch.” Cardella then went to the doorjam and repeated his comment. Petitioner was in the next cell and when he witnessed this he began to scream at c/o Cardella to leave Daniel alone. Petitioner reported this to all present staff.

8)      It appears to Petitioner that c/o Cardella has some weird fascination/fixation with Daniel as Petitioner has witnessed c/o Cardella become entranced, staring at Daniel with a strange look on his face many times when he thinks no one is paying attention and all other free staff are busy. [p. 3]

9)      Petitioner has heard c/o Cardella talk about “pile driving” inmates and fears that if c/o Cardella ever gets a chance he will severely injure Daniel.

10)   It appears to Petitioner that Daniel no longer even understands that he is in prison.

Petitioner submits this petition in good faith and swears to its contents under penalty of perjury. Further, Petitioner would polygraph and/or testify to these matters in any investigation or Court proceeding.

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays this Court will appoint a guardian and/or attorney to look into these allegations and continue to look out for Daniel Stenner’s safety and wellbeing.

Dated this 10th Day of May, 2012.

Respectfully Submitted,

[signed] Philip Tragale

Philip Tragale #62163
NNCC
P.O. Box 7000
Carson City, NV 89702


Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report

This is the latest Newsletter of Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report. You can find it on their site here.
Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report
Vol. 2, No 3 “Veritas in Caritatis” Winter Issue 2011 – 12
THEME: “Audi alterum partem”
Listen to the other side!
“Voice of the Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report”
Statement of Purpose:
The NJPR Newsletter reports on current prison conditions, good and bad; more importantly it looks at and evaluates the legal processes and the substantive laws which are designed to keep men in prison: Pre-trial issues, probation and parole policy, sentencing structures, post-conviction law, and most important, the philosophy underlying policy in practice.
The purpose of the NJPR Website is to provide a repository of affidavits, declarations and grievances in Web-Dossiers organized by categories of intuitional behavior. Fundamentally, this is a whistleblowing organization trying to associate with other “transparency” projects at an intrastate, national and global level. We seek to identify patterns which can be utilized by the U.S. Department of Justice.
We invite any resident, and especially judicial officers of the Courts and government Administration to write letters to the NJPR.
Index to this Issue:
Section One: Conditions
1. Compassionate Release Does Not Exist
2. Food Degeneration
3. Clothing Degeneration
4. Inmate Beaten by Cops– Again
Section TWO: Law, Equity and Policy
White Collar Justice for All
Gödel’s Political Theory
The Tyranny of Parole and Probation
Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion
The Evil Externalities of Computer Technology
Poem: Progress by Decree (for Doug, RIP)
Subscriptions and Services
Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Newsletter can be delivered via e-mail or snail-mail. We ask you send a copy into NDOC system and your local legislature and press!
E-mail: $3 for 6 months
$5 for 12 months
Snail-mail: $8 for 6 months
$15 for 12 months
—————
Read the whole Newsletter here.