WelcomeTo My World

Friday, 25 October 2013

Federal Prison Camps - A Complete Waste

It is another boring day at the federal prison camp in Florence, Colorado. Figured I would write
something concerning my observations about the usefulness of a prison camp and highlight facts
concerning the IRP6 bond denial, which I am sure you will find interesting.
I have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated for 14 months at the Federal Prison Camp in
Florence, Colorado. I am David Banks, one of the IRP6. Prison reform has been discussed both
by President Obama and Eric Holder given that the federal prison system is operating at 40%
overcapacity. I would recommend to budget conscious legislators to take a close look at the
waste of taxpayers dollars being expended to operate useless federal prison camps, which in my
opinion is nothing more than a warehouse for storing humans. The government would save a
significant amount of money by replacing prison camps with home confinement.
Prison camps are considered the lowest security level in the federal prison system. Given that
low security level, they don't have a fence around them. Certainly the inmates sent to a prison
camp can't be considered a danger to the community or the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would have
secured their incarceration with all the trimmings such as barbed wire fencing and roving patrols.
Since I have been here, three inmates have simply walked off the camp and have yet to be found.
Two are certain to have returned to Mexico and the other unknown at this time. If the inmates
are not caught it will save taxpayers $90,000 per year. Basic representative analysis of costs
associated with operating a prison camp presents a compelling picture.
According to the BOP, The average cost for incarcerating an inmate is approximately $30,000
per year. The Florence prison camp is normally staffed by six correctional officers --- two
working one of three shifts in a twenty-four (24) hour period. Other staff, who are all classically
trained as corrections officers include three case managers, 2-3 counselors, three to four food
service officers, education officer and recreation officer, unit manager and camp administrator,
physicians assistant, medical secretary, dental hygienist, 2 unit secretary's, R&D officer RDAP
Officer, and Non-residential Drug Program officer. That totals 23-25 staff staff, without
considering other administrative personnel who occupy offices at the camp. I would estimate are
compensated anywhere from $40k-$100K depending on their position. Estimating an average
salary of $50k, twenty-five staff at the Florence federal prison camp would cost taxpayers
$1,250,000.00 per year. Estimating five hundred fifty inmates at the camp, each costing $30k per
year, the cost to taxpayers would be $16,500,000.00 per year. Just those two cost alone total
$17,500,000.00 per year to the taxpayer. Additional costs not accounted for are medical expenses
for the inmates and benefits for correctional officers and other administrative officials. If
Florence prison camp inmates were placed in home confinement, the cost would be roughly
$2.64 million annually, based on $4800 per inmate per year if the government paid for the ankle
monitoring service. The taxpayer would also be relieved of inmate medical expenses such as
emergency room visits, hospitalization and surgery costs. Obviously there would be cost for the
hardware, which could be amortized offset by the service contract similarly to cell phones.
Obviously, it is completely reasonable for inmates to incur the cost of home confinement.
Consider me and my five co-defendants who were absolutely entitled to bail pending appeal, but
because the Judge and prosecutor, who I believed despised and literally hated us for defending
ourselves, went against what is customary --- audaciously arguing that we were a flight risk after
sentencing. Keep in mind that they did not rely on 10th Circuit precedent, but rather an
anecdotal case and opinion (U.S. v. Bailey 759 F. Supp. 685, 686 (D. Colo. 1991)) made by a
district court judge (Not appellate case law). Additionally, Assistant United States Attorney
Kirsch and Judge Arguello made the most audacious and specious of arguments that the IRP6
was a flight risk, that we should be denied bond because our case was comparable to that of
Bernie Madoff (U.S. v Madoff, 316 F.2d 58, 59 (2d. Cir. 2009). You can close your month now
from the shock --- yes, I said Bernie Madoff --- the architect of a $50 billion dollar ponzi
scheme, the largest in U.S. history.
The government and the district court concluded that the IRP6 was a risk of flight based on
length of potential sentence (7-11 years) and that assets (staffing dollars) from the alleged
scheme could not be accounted for. The Madoff court found the in light of Madoff's age (70
years old) and length of sentence (150 years), unaccounted assets, and ownership of a residence
abroad he was a flight risk. In the Bailey case, Bailey was facing a potential sentence of 40 years
for a drug charge and carrying a firearm in relation to drug trafficking, ultimately pleading guilty
to a lesser charge of 5 years and tried to withdraw his plea later. Neither the Madoff or Bailey
are no where comparable to the IRP6 case but it didn't stop the government, district court or 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals from denying the IRP6 bond pending appeal. Judge Arguello's
argument that staffing dollars were unaccounted for was not factually supported by the record. In
fact the government's own forensic accountant stated on the court record that the she had
accounted for the staffing payments from staffing company invoices and the amounts paid to
information technology contractors that worked on the project.
I want to amplify on the fact that staffing dollars were PAID DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES for the work they performed in relation to the software development projects,
which was approximately 40 separate employees. The checks were made out in the name each
and every contract employee. Contract employees, who are legally considered EMPLOYEES OF
THE STAFFING COMPANY, were paid after they signed and submitted weekly or bi-weekly
timesheets provided to them by their staffing company for which they worked. That is how the
total amount was computed. When our attorney, Gwendolyn Solomon, filed a motion for
reconsideration detailing the testimony of the government's forensic accountant, thereby proving
that Judge Arguello's order was inconsistent with the transcript, the 10th Circuit simply refused
to even review or consider what was actually said --- certifying our denial of bond based on a
factually inaccurate record by the district court. The result was our continued incarceration.
We were confused how our bond could be denied given our perfect attendance to every court
date. In fact, all of the IRP6 had possession of their passports up until the verdict was announced.
Some of the IRP6, including myself had travelled internationally to market our CILC software to
law enforcement agencies outside the country because the federal government had intentionally
ruined our business prospects here in the U.S. We later found out they were also interfering
internationally, but that is another discussion. Certainly, we had the opportunity to flee at that
time. Additionally, four days prior to my sentencing date, I witnessed two of my codefendants,
Ken Barnes and Gary Walker get sentenced to 7 and 11 years respectively. Given witnessing my
codefendant's sentencing, shouldn't I have fled? Three of my other codefendant's witnessed Gary
and Ken's sentencing as well. Shouldn't they have fled too? In our hearts and minds, we knew
that the government and court were convinced we were not a flight risk, but they wanted to hurt
us, to crush us, to punish us for standing against them and standing for our rights. I believe they
were disgusted that we had the nerve to fight for our innocence --- defying the will of the federal
government and the court.
We, the flight risks have been assigned us a prison camp with no fence. Shouldn't we have fled
by now? According to the Madoff and Bailey cases relied on by the government and the court,
that is definitely the case. We are now tax liabilities of the American people. Instead of paying
taxes and contributing to the economic output of our country, we have cost the taxpayer
approximately $200,000.00 and that cost climbs daily. The incarceration costs of the IRP6 was
an avoidable expense to the taxpayer, much like the government shutdown and debt ceiling
crisis, was manufactured based on what I believe were the politics of personal destruction. In the
government shutdown, politicians touted they were doing what is best for the American people
--- causing 800,000 American people to not get paid and a loss of $24 billion dollars to the U.S.
economic output. In the IRP6 case, willfully and intentionally depriving the IRP6 of their
liberty, costing the taxpayers in excess of $200k in an exercise that can be considered nothing
less than legal casuistry.
Many inmates who admit to committing crimes have worked there way down from higher
security facilities to prison camps. Prison camps are nothing more than a bunch of people
walking around accomplishing absolutely nothing substantive and costing the taxpayers multiple
millions of dollars. Our government would be better served allowing inmates to work their way
down to home confinement and abolish camps altogether. The cost savings would be tremendous
and correctional officers could be reallocated to higher security facilities which are reportedly
We are all still here fighting for justice. A Just Cause fights for justice. Our families fight for
justice. Many of you in the public are fighting for our justice, of which we are grateful. It's not
the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's, Congressman or the mainstream media, or really even the
courts --- all of which are members of the political expediency club. Lady Justice has taken her
blindfold and is using it as a bandana to represent her gang affiliation with the political
expedient. We look to God to fight for us and ultimately give us our freedom back because the
courts cannot be relied upon to render justice. If they could, our case would have already been
reversed based on the missing transcript and we would not have been denied bond supported by
such weak, disingenuous arguments."

No comments:

Post a Comment