WelcomeTo My World

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Federal Agency BOP Fails To Act On Their Open Door Policy, As They Turned Away An Advocacy Group




A Just Cause recently visited BOP in Washington and found out that their "Open Door Policy" was nothing but an open door lie!.....

Advocacy Group, A Just Cause, Seeks Investigation in IRP6 Case; Questions of Misconduct Leading to Invalid Prosecution and Conviction

Source: A Just Cause

June 30, 2015 09:48 ET

Advocacy Group, A Just Cause, Seeks Investigation in IRP6 Case; Questions of Misconduct Leading to Invalid Prosecution and Conviction

Serious Inconsistencies Generate Questions About How the IRP6 Case Made It to Trial and Led to a Gross Injustice, Says Advocacy Group, A Just Cause

DENVER, CO--(Marketwired - June 30, 2015) - Advocacy group, A Just Cause, continues to explore grounds for investigating the indictment and prosecution in theIRP6 case, and question the validity of the convictions (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
The IRP6 case concerns an African-American company (IRP Solutions Corporation) in Colorado that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement. The IRP6 (David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, David A. Zirpolo and Gary L. Walker) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. The defense argues that key questionable events in the case contributed to a wrongful conviction (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). The IRP6 are requesting Attorney General Loretta Lynch to conduct an investigation into acts of misconduct.
"As the IRP6 case lingers on, there are more questions than answers as to how this case even got into the courts," ponders Lamont Banks, A Just Cause Executive Director. "A Just Cause has reviewed the IRP6 case from top to bottom and there are numerous inconsistencies which leads one to conclude that procedural and legal violations occurred. Individually one might look at a particular procedural or legal action in this case and try to explain it away, but when you look at all of the inconsistencies collectively, it begins to form a picture of a conspiracy of the worst kind against six innocent men," expressed Banks.
"A Just Cause has compiled a timeline that shows critical events dating back to February 2005 when the IRP6 and their company IRP Solutions were subjected to what we have determined to be a gross injustice," says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. "When one looks at the events that occurred and review laws that govern those actions, the acts by certain folks in the federal government don't pass the smell test," Thurman added.
Records show that IRP Solutions Corporation was raided in February 2005 after a search warrant affidavit was executed stating that the company was a "purported" software development company. Court records show that FBI Agent John Smith executed the raid on the company although the agent was aware that the company was legitimate. "According to records in discovery, IRP Solutions was raided by the FBI although the federal government was in possession of sworn affidavits stating that the company was conducting legitimate business and creating a legitimate software package," says Banks. Records show that retired federal agent Gary Hillberry was working at IRP Solutions as a consultant at the time of the raid and had provided a sworn affidavit to Agent Smith prior to the raid which stated, "...IRP Solutions truly had a viable law enforcement product and appeared to be moving forward to acquire state and federal law enforcement contracts for their product...". "In addition to statements like that of retired agent Hillberry, A Just Cause found that Agent Smith had been in contact with IRP Solutions prospective customers like the Department of Homeland Security and the NYPD and confirmed that there was legitimate business activity. With that knowledge in hand, how can a raid be justified under the auspice that the company was a 'purported' software development company?" ponders Banks.
"The timeline compiled by A Just Cause clearly reveals that something is not right about the IRP6 case," argues Banks. "Right from the start things don't add up. Just a few months after the company is raided, the FBI sends a letter to one of the company's debtors stating that it is a civil matter, but as the timeline will show, a vindictive prosecution would unfold," adds Banks.
Court records show that in August 2005 FBI Special Supervisory Agent Jean M. Andersen sent correspondence to an IRP Solutions vendor (Mr. Robert Grabowski) stating, "...we (FBI) are unable to assist you in this matter and therefore no investigation will be conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, the FBI has made it a matter of record. We feel this case would be best handled civilly, and have noted that you have initiated legal action against the company (IRP)...". (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
Court records show that the IRP6 were indicted in May 2009. "What's interesting about this is that the indictment against the IRP6 came after the case was presented to a second grand jury," explains Banks. The IRP6 argue that the first grand jury that heard the allegations against them did not return an indictment, stating that the case was a debt case and that no criminal activity had occurred. Records show that FBI agent Robert Moen was the only witness called before the second grand jury and an indictment was handed down shortly afterwards. "It is our understanding that impanelling two grand juries to hear the same allegation against a person(s) is not normal, so the manner in which this occurred is highly questionable, especially considering the fact that several witnesses were called in the first grand jury (which didn't indict), but only one was called during the second grand jury (which rendered an indictment)," adds Banks.
According to the discovery documents, prior to the 2009 indictment, executives of IRP continued to try to sell the CILC software. According to IRP executives it was their plan to continue to try to make sells, generate revenue, and settle their debts. "IRP executives found out that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Kirsch impeded the company from doing business by contacting prospective customers and telling them 'that an indictment was coming', and to not do business with IRP," explains Banks. Records show that in February 2009 IRP Solutions was talking with the City of Philadelphia regarding the CILC software. Gery Cardenas, Director of Information Technology for the Philadelphia Police Department, was interviewed by FBI agent Jennifer Ngo regarding the IRP Solutions case. "PPD (Philadelphia PD) was very close to having the (CILC) product installed prior to the discovery of the IRP investigation," said Cardenas, according to Ngo's interview notes. Discovery also shows that Philadelphia Inspector General Amy Kurland was also contacted by AUSA Kirsch and told, "an indictment was coming" against IRP executives. "As a result of the contact by the AUSA the engagements with Philadelphia didn't come to fruition for IRP. The City of Philadelphia canceled both of IRP's engagements with the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia Inspector General's Office after AUSA Kirsch's conversation," says Banks. "This turn of events is particularly interesting because not only did AUSA Kirsch tell agencies not to do business with IRP Solutions, but when the case went to trial he motioned the court to prohibit IRP from discussing any business activities after February 2005 (when the raid on the business occurred)," says Banks. "Court records show that the motion to prohibit discussing post-Feb-2005 business activity was granted, thus putting the jury in a position of not hearing all of the facts about the case," Banks adds. "Two things happened in the situation with Philadelphia. First if the AUSA hadn't interfered, IRP could have closed business and settled its debt. And secondly, if the jury had been allowed to hear all of the facts, the government's theory of fraud by a bogus company would have been shot down and the jury could have easily acquitted," Banks concludes.
"Prior to the case going to trial, there was yet another opportunity in September 2010 for the federal government to dismiss the IRP6 because the software that IRP was developing was analyzed by a government approved forensics analyst," says Banks. Court records show that Forensic Analyst Don Vilfer, of the software forensics analysis firm Califorensics, compiled a written report stating, "The CILC software did not appear to be 'vaporware' but included a large amount of complex coding that would have required significant development (software development). The CILC software was functional at the time of the search warrant (making reference to the February 2005 raid on the IRP Solutions offices). The software contained many notable features, making it a functional product for the intended consumer. There is a market for the functionality that CILC software offers and it (CILC) would undoubtedly be of interest to many law enforcement agencies." The Califorensics written reportconcluded, "...it appears the CILC software (IRP Solutions) strives to... manage information throughout the criminal justice pipeline. No one software application would meet the needs of all agencies, but the functionality that we observed... would undoubtedly be of interest to many law enforcement agencies." Records show that Vilfer is an Attorney, a Certified Fraud Examiner, a Certified Analyst for Computer Forensics and Decryption, and a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent for the White Collar Crime and Computer Crimes Squad. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
"When you review the entire timeline of the IRP6 case, there are several key indicators that show that officers of the court were not interested in justice, but seemed to be more about placing obstacles in the path of the IRP6," says Banks. Court records show that the IRP6 filed a motion to dismiss their court appointed attorneys after the attorneys refused to work with them to develop a proffer and meet with the U.S. Attorney John Walsh. The IRP executives filed a Pro Se Motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Judge Michael E. Hegarty, U.S. Magistrate Judge). The motion was granted to allow the IRP executives to proceed as Pro Se.
Court records show that the IRP6 case went to trial in September 2011. "It was clear shortly after the trial started that the prosecution was trying to prevent the IRP6 from presenting a case that would lay all the facts out for the jury," says Banks. "During a post trial interview, one of the jurors stated that the jury kept waiting on the IRP executives to present their evidence of innocence. The jury never heard most of the evidence of innocence because the prosecution objected and Judge Arguello (the presiding judge) sustained most of the objections, thus putting the IRP6 at a disadvantage," adds Banks.
"Records from the trial show that the IRP6 were convicted in October 2011, but there were several inconsistencies and questionable actions that preceded that conviction," says Banks. Court records show that expert witnesses Andrew Albarelle and Kellie Baucom were prevented from testifying. Their testimony would have explained that IRP executives conducted business according to industry standards. Court records further show that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Kirsch asked the court to prohibit the IRP executives from entering evidence/events, etc. post February 2005. Judge Arguello granted the motion. Court records show that the IRP6 motioned for dismissal arguing that Judge Arguello violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to take the witness stand against their will. Records show that when the IRP6 requested transcripts showing the violation (which occurred during a sidebar bench conference), Judge Arguello did not provide the transcript. "A Just Cause has found through discussions with attorneys and experienced judges that missing transcripts is definitely grounds for a dismissal or retrial, but neither happened in the IRP6 case," says Banks.
Court records show that prior to the trial completion, and during the appeals process, the IRP6 argued that their Fifth Amendment right had been violated, but that the court transcript pertaining to a sidebar bench conference was missing from the official court record (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). Records show that Darlene Martinez (Federal Court Reporter in the IRP6 case) affirmed in court to federal Judge Arguello that the unedited/original transcript of the bench conference consisted of 200 pages. Court records confirm that the IRP6 asked Judge Arguello for the unedited version of the transcript. Judge Arguello questioned Martinez, "How many pages is it?" Martinez affirms, "Over 200 pages." Judge Arguello further states, "Over 200 pages... for no purpose that I can see that would be served by having that at this time. I am not going to have an expedited, and unedited version (of the transcript) delivered to the defendants (IRP6)," concludes Arguello. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, October 2011, Court transcript pages 2062 - 2063).
According to 28 U.S. Code § 753 -- Reporters (Court Reporter's Act), all proceedings in criminal cases had in open court shall be "...recorded verbatim...". 28 U.S. Code § 753 further states, "The reporter or other individual designated to produce the record shall attach his official certificate to the original shorthand notes or other original records so taken and promptly file them with the clerk who shall preserve them in the public records of the court for not less than ten years." (28 U.S. Code § 753 -- Reporters (Court Reporter's Act))
"A Just Cause argues that court reporter Darlene Martinez and Judge Arguello had an obligation based on the Court Reporter's Act to deliver a full and complete certified transcript," states Banks. "When Martinez certified, by signature, that the transcript that is on file is a complete verbatim recording of the IRP6 proceedings, that provides the Attorney General solid grounds for an investigation because the record that is on file contradicts that certification," argues Banks. Court records further show that in August 2013 A Just Cause filed a civil lawsuit against Darlene Martinez for the missing transcript. Court records go on to show that in May 2014 Judge R. Brooke Jackson (Denver Federal Court) dismissed the case. "This is another turn of events that involves serious inconsistencies," says Banks. "Judge Jackson dismissed the case, yet in his opinion he stated that there is no question that 'something' is missing from the transcript. If 'something' is missing, then how can the case be dismissed without demanding that the court reporter turn over all of the records," emphasized Banks.
"Records show that Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon filed motions to the court to have the transcript released and A Just Cause sent numerous letters to the courts, to DOJ and Senators," says Thurman. "These types of efforts have proven to be productive in that members of Congress, Senators, other Attorneys and Judges are reviewing this case with great scrutiny," adds Thurman. "Retired federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin wouldn't take our word for it regarding the injustice, but rather reviewed all of the court documentation personally and came to the conclusion that a gross injustice had occurred," Thurman shares. "Others that are looking into this case with a critical eye include The Ways and Means Committee on Capitol Hill," adds Thurman. "Legislators and staffers on Capitol Hill are interested in why the church the men (IRP6) attended was subjected to injustice by federal investigators from the FBI and when church banking records were seized without subpoenas. Even banking records of the Pastor and some of the church members were seized without subpoenas," adds Thurman. "Now looking at this collective timeline of events, it should be clear that there were a lot of inconsistencies and abnormalities in the IRP6 case," adds Thurman.
"Regarding the transcript, it is the position of the IRP6 and A Just Cause that the appellate court did not properly disposition this matter," argues Thurman. Records show that the appellate court opinion stated, "The court has acknowledged that a portion of the sidebar was not transcribed." Id. at 431 (Order Rejecting Proposed Stip., filed Oct. 16, 2012); see R., Vol. 1, at 1591 (noting that a "portion of the sidebar was not transcribed by the court reporter"). As the court has put it, "[f]or whatever reason, whether the parties spoke too far from the microphone or the court reporter took off her headphones, the court reporter did not hear everything that was said at the sidebar and therefore did not transcribe anything besides what is contained in the edited transcript." 12 Supp. R., Vol. 1, at 430. "The opinion of the appellate court and the actions of the court are baffling," says Thurman. "The court acknowledges that a critical portion of the transcript is not available, yet they did not reverse the conviction," ponders Thurman.
According to articles published in The Huffington Post by Retired Federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, the IRP6 have reason to question the conviction and sentencing in their case. Judge Sarokin wrote a five-part series sharing his thoughts of the IRP6 case. In Part 2 of Judge Sarokin's series (May 2013) he wrote, "If there is no way to determine whether or not the 5th Amendment rights of the defendants were violated, does the Court of Appeals have any other choice but to either reverse and remand for a new trial or dismiss?" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-missing-transcript-ca_b_5334328.html). In July 2014, Sarokin pondered several questions. ".[the] case itself raises so many unanswered questions: Why wasn't the critical conversation regarding the Court's direction to the defendants upon which they base their constitutional violation recorded? Why did these defendants with no criminal records, no risk of flight, convicted of a non-violent crime receive such harsh sentences -- 7 to 11 years and repeatedly be denied bail pending appeal?" pondered Sarokin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-case-of-the-missing-t_2_b_5619097.html). Judge H. Lee Sarokin served on the United States District Court (N.J.) appointed by President Carter, and the United States Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.) appointed by President Clinton. He retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench and now resides in Rancho Santa Fe, CA.
"In addition to the other inconsistencies in the IRP6 case, A Just Cause questions why it took nearly a year for the appellate court to render a decision," questions Thurman. "The men were incarcerated in July 2012 but a decision wasn't rendered until August 2014. And during this period of time there were several mixed messages coming from the appellate court and the Court Clerk for the 10th Circuit," adds Thurman. "One assistant to an appellate judge said that the decision had long been sent back to the clerk's office (Denver), but the clerk's office would contradict that and say that they were waiting on input from the judges. In another communication, the clerk's office would say that it was with the writing judge. It is this type of inconsistency and altered stories that point to the basis for the claim that there was misconduct in the IRP6 case and an investigation is warranted for criminal misconduct and/or interference in the judicial process," concludes Thurman.
"The questionable activities in the IRP6 case touches every level of the judicial process," says Banks. "The investigation and warrant process has to be questioned because the FBI lead investigator got the search warrant and raided the offices of IRP Solutions under false pretenses. The grand jury process was violated because the decision of the people in the first grand jury was ignored and a second grand jury only heard from one witness and didn't receive all of the facts. The criminal trial was flawed for several reasons. Court appointed attorneys didn't do due diligence. Evidence of business activity from post-Feb 2005 was not allowed by the judge. Evidence of the legitimacy of the business and the product (Califorensics analysis) was not allowed. Expert witness testimony was not allowed. The IRP6 were forced to testify by Judge Arguello, but the transcript showing the violation disappeared. Darlene Martinez violated the Court Reporters Act, and this violation was not pursued by the U.S. Attorney, DOJ, the criminal courts, the civil courts, or the Colorado Senators. The court of appeals did not act expeditiously in matters related to the IRP case, and there were several questions to arise in the handling and decision of the appeal," argues Banks.
"A Just Cause will do a deep dive into several of the inconsistencies during the organization's weekly blogtalk radio program, AJC Radio (www.ajcradio.com)," says Banks. "The issues raised in the IRP6 case identify serious breakdowns in our judicial process," adds Banks. "A Just Cause will continue to fight for the exoneration of the IRP6 because this case highlights a gross injustice. We must continue to raise these issues for the IRP6, but also to help prevent this type of thing from happening to someone else," concludes Banks.
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go tohttp://www.freetheirp6.org.

Contact Information

    CONTACT INFORMATIONA Just Cause
    (855) 529-4252 extension 703

Monday, 29 June 2015

Why I stand up for Rodney Reed? #MarkClements #RodneyReed




Why I stand up for Rodney Reed? I am someone that always will tell you that the criminal justice system is flawed. If any one clearly knows what a police department will do to arrest and win convictions, I clearly know. I have witness the dirty tricks of the system, I was one of their products. Locked inside a prison and told that I would remain their to die. I was given another death penalty called mental anguish, pain, and suffering while looking at men such as Rodney suffer decades on death row for crimes that they never committed. Next week I am going to go over some ways how you can help. We cannot let Texas kill another innocent man, I say LOUD and CLEAR, Innocence must matter!
Mark A. Clements

Friday, 26 June 2015

Secrets of St Peter's: Shocking child abuse at Catholic Church school revealed





Express reporter Joanna Della-Ragione investigates shocking claims of historic child sex abuse at a former approved school, St Peter's in Gainford, County Durham. Speaking for the first time, the victims tell their own story and explain how the Catholic Church covered-up the appalling scandal. Filmed and directed by Daniel Luccesi. Warning: This film contains upsetting material.

Why Do We Fall - Motivational Video





Audio:
Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), Any Given Sunday (Al Pacino), Coach Carter (Rick Gonzalez), The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin), Will Smith, Eric Thomas, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Jordan, Derrick Rose, Ray Lewis, Muhammad Ali.

Thursday, 18 June 2015

Source: A Just Cause

June 18, 2015 09:09 ET

BOP Chief, Director Samuels, Ignores Reports of Threats, Harassment and Assault of Minors by BOP Guards in Florence, Colorado, Says Advocacy Group, A Just Cause

Advocacy Group, A Just Cause Says BOP Has Failed to Take Action at Federal Prison Camp in Florence, Colorado After Repeated Reports of BOP Program Policy Violations

DENVER, CO--(Marketwired - June 18, 2015) - Advocacy group, A Just Cause, today says it has filed complaints with the Department of Justice Inspector General and theOffice of Internal Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding ongoing violations by Corrections Officers at the Federal Prison Camp in Florence, Colorado. Charges by A Just Cause include violations of rules listed in BOP Program Statement 1210.24 (Office of Internal Affairs) and BOP Program Statement 3420.11 (Standards of Employee Conduct).
"Over the past three years A Just Cause (AJC) has made the BOP aware of issues at the prison camp in Florence regarding a group of men known as the IRP6, and AJC has asked Director Samuels and his staff for remedies where violations of BOP policy have occurred," says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause.
The IRP6 case concerns a Colorado-based company (IRP Solutions Corporation) that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement. The IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and David A Banks) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
"Several situations have come up over the past few years but the most egregious and alarming are violations where the minor children of the IRP6 have been targeted," says Lamont Banks, Executive Director, A Just Cause. "As recent as the past few days AJC has written to Director Samuels regarding incidents involving the IRP6 children where there was inappropriate touching, harassment, and threats," Banks added. "Just last week on June 13th, Kyle Walker, the son of one of the IRP6 was harassed and told that he 'was not in the system' and that he would not be allowed to visit," says Banks. "Walker has been visiting the prison camp for the past three years," says Banks.
"AJC's June 15th letter of complaint to the BOP and the DOJ Inspector General states that Kyle Walker was denied entry to the federal prison camp at Florence Colorado, and that he was harassed by Corrections Officer Maki in the process," says Banks. "Walker, and his uncle Cliff Stewart, who was also there to visit, received conflicting direction from prison staff as to actions being taken to clarify Walker's visit status," says Banks. "My uncle and I were told by Case Manager Kleine to wait in the hallway until she could get clarification, but Officer Maki came along a few minutes later and told us to go outside, and that 'he was in charge of the visitor center,'" says Kyle Walker. "When we stated that we were waiting on Ms. Kleine per her instructions, Officer Maki made the comment to my uncle, 'If you don't do what I tell you, I will take it out on your family who is an inmate in here,'" Walker concluded.
Records show that in March 2015 AJC filed another complaint for a similar situation regarding Kyle Walker. Also in March, the AJC complaint charged that Tiffany Stewart (the daughter of one of the inmates) was harassed and questioned about her clothing.
In May 2015, A Just Cause filed another complaint with Warden Stancil at Florence regarding the minor daughter of Mr. Demetrius Harper (one of the IRP6). "The incident involving Mr. Harper and his daughter is very personal, but it is an incident that drives home the extent to which the harassment and mistreatment goes," says Banks. The AJC complaint filed on behalf of Harper charges that Harper's daughter was harassed by Officer Maki during a visit on Friday, May 15, 2015. Visit records confirm that the daughter was visiting Harper long with her little brother and her grandfather. The complaint shows that Harper's daughter informed him that her monthly cycle had started (unexpectedly early) and that she needed feminine hygiene products. The prison visitor center was no longer stocking the products in the women's rest room, so Mr. Harper informed his daughter to ask the Visit Room Officer (Officer Lopez) if she could go to her grandfather's vehicle to retrieve her feminine hygiene products. Officer Lopez approved her to go to the vehicle, but upon returning to the building Harper's daughter was met outside the Visit Room by Officer Maki. The complaint shows that Officer Maki spoke to Harper's daughter in a threatening manner, told her that she should not have gone to the vehicle and that her visit was in jeopardy of being terminated. The complaint shows that Harper's daughter explained that another officer, Officer Lopez, had granted permission, but Officer Maki replied that he didn't care what Officer Lopez had approved. "Officer Maki should not harass a child under any circumstances, but to do so outside the presence of her father or grandfather warrants an immediate investigation and disciplinary action," argues Banks.
"In November 2014 A Just Cause filed a complaint with the BOP regarding an incident of inappropriate physical contact by a Corrections Officer toward the young daughter of Mr. Clinton Stewart (one of the IRP6)," explains Thurman. The AJC complaint charges that Florence Colorado federal prison camp visitor center Corrections Officer Bennett, on two occasions, put his hands on the daughter of Stewart. According to a sworn affidavit forwarded to BOP, Stewart's daughter recalled that Officer Bennett approached her and "poked" her on the shoulder several times and told her that she needed to move her seat because he "needed to see her hands." The Stewarts changed seats, and rather than sitting next to each other, they sat across from each other. The complaint continues that, during this same visit, Officer Bennett again approached Stewart's daughter from behind and "poked" her on the shoulder and told her that she wasn't supposed to have any money larger than a 5-dollar bill (he actually reached over other inmates/visitors). Stewart's daughter immediately corrected that situation. The complaint states that in addition to these two incidents, other visitors noted that Bennett had on occasion followed Stewart's daughter around the visit center. "Stewart's daughter is a 20-year-old young lady who should not be 'man-handled' by a guard, or anyone else as far as that matters," states Thurman. "It was totally inappropriate for Officer Bennett to touch a young lady in any manner, regardless of the purpose. A Just Cause reported the incident to BOP as an assault, and on behalf of Ms. Stewart A Just Cause asked that immediate corrective action be taken to ensure that this behavior cease. A Just Cause did not receive a response to the complaint," Thurman stated.
"A Just Cause is very disappointed at the lack of response and action on the part of the BOP," says Banks. "On Wednesday, June 17, I was accompanied by Cliff and Lisa Stewart to BOP in Washington DC to convey concerns of harassment toward children and families of the IRP6 while visit the prison camp in Florence Colorado. We contacted the BOP to announce that we would be there on this date, but what transpired is an utter shock to A Just Cause," Banks added.
"A Just Cause is appending the complaint to the Office of Internal Affairs charging that on June 17th, 2015, representatives of AJC were falsely accused of threatening members of the executive staff of BOP, treated with malicious intent by BOP Physical Security Specialist Kim Pierce, and escorted from the BOP building by Federal Protective Services officers," says Banks.
"The actions by Specialist Kim Pierce were not only inappropriate and appalling, but totally surprising as well," states Cliff Stewart, A Just Cause. "With the interactions between the BOP Chaplaincy Services as well as the Public Relations Division, there has been useful dialog and information on enhancing the BOP'S interactions with the public as well as its relations with advocacy groups. Today's ambush of AJC officials by BOP Physical Security staff erodes the foundation of this relationship that has taken nearly three years to cultivate. On today's visit we had signed in and were cleared into the building to visit with Sue Allison, and all of a sudden things changed. And we were totally shocked that others with whom we have built relationships with like Heidi Kugler and Judi Garrett didn't correct the situation," Stewart concluded.
"The appended compliant charges that law enforcement officials communicated to the AJC representatives that BOP reported that AJC had sent threatening emails and that the AJC representatives were to be removed from the premises," says Banks. "The complaint states that AJC representatives shared the 'two-way' communication that had transpired with BOP, and that law enforcement officials noted that there was no present or imminent situation that could remotely be interpreted as a threat to anyone. In fact, the purpose of the visit was quite to the contrary of what your office conveyed to law enforcement. The fact is, the purpose of the visit was to share information about threats made by Corrections Officers at the federal prison camp in Florence Colorado directed at inmates and family members of those inmates," says Banks.
"Representatives of A Just Cause have visited BOP, Washington DC before, and they always left encouraged that, namely you and others, were people who truly cared about improving the conditions of inmates," says Thurman. "When AJC representatives were told that there was an opened-door policy and that AJC was welcomed to share concerns at any time, the AJC representatives felt confident that those were genuine words and expressions of true concern. Today's experience painted a different picture; one of lack of caring and lack of desire to hold BOP employees accountable for their actions (i.e., threats by a guard against family members and inmates). Accountability of BOP employees (i.e., Corrections Officers) and their management (Wardens and Camp Administrators) is a significant matter within the prison system, especially when it relates to violations of BOP policy when it comes to making threats against anyone (inmate, co-worker, contractor, or visitor). Not holding BOP employees and management accountable, amounts to an endorsement of their actions," says Thurman.
"One would think that when children are threatened by correctional officers and inappropriate touching of a minor by BOP officers at federal prison occurs, BOP executives would be concerned," says Banks. "Such misconduct and criminal acts being done and sanctioned by Director Samuels and the BOP staff is truly alarming and the nation should be outraged," Banks added.
"It's sad that situations like those filed by A Just Cause occur and those in position of power take a nonchalant attitude," says Thurman. "BOP Director Samuels published a 'Suicide Prevention' memo in 2012 'encouraging' inmates to keep hope and not commit suicide. He went on to say in his memo that he had their best interest in mind. When an advocacy group sees an agency the size of BOP being nonresponsive and becoming combative for no reason, one questions the 2012 memo or any memo like it," ponders Thurman. "It is so clear that when family members of the IRP6 visit the federal prison camp in Florence, there is one set of rules for the IRP6, and another set of rules for everyone else. Inconsistency in application of rules is a major contributor to the issues, but the bottom line is that harassment at any level is not appropriate and BOP should address it," Thurman concludes.
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go tohttp://www.freetheirp6.org.

Contact Information

    CONTACT INFORMATION

    A Just Cause
    (855) 529-4252 extension 703

Friday, 12 June 2015

Loving Day’ LOVING V. VIRGINIA

Loving Day’ marks 48th anniversary of legal interracial marriage


Loving Day celebrates national legalization of interracial marriage

LOVING V. VIRGINIA: THE CASE OVER INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE


Loving v. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidatedlaws prohibiting interracial marriage.
The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional.

Background

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States had been in place in certain states since before the United States declared independence. At the time that the decision was made, 17 states, all southern States, had such laws.

The Fight, Mildred Loving Story

This is a short documentary of how a black woman fought the legal system alongside her white husband to be able to legally be together as husband and wife in 1958- 1967.

.

Loving v. Virginia: No Longer a Black and White Story