Demonstration, New Website for Nolan Klein

Last Friday (21 August), a group of Advocates for the Innocent gathered and demonstrated at the Federal Court House, Reno, NV. Their goal: to expose Ron Rachow and the Washoe County Dick Gammick and the DA’s administration of the last 21 years, who withheld evidence in the case of Nolan Klein (and who knows of more innocent people?).

The demonstration was organized in support of Tonja Brown and her brother Nolan Klein, who is gravely ill, and who has been in prison for the last 21 years in a wrongful conviction due to the withholding of evidence by Ron Rachow.

A new website has also been launched to inform the public about this case:

The following link contains the documents submitted to the Advisory Commission requesting a case study to be conducted on Wrongful convictions through eyewitness testimony and tainted photo line ups. The information in the link shows the discrepancies between Nolan Klein and the prime suspect that was withheld from the defense by Ron Rachow.

This is the link to the exhibits (PDF opens).

Tonja Brown submitted to the Advisory Commission a proposed bill dealing with DNA evidence and wrongful convictions. She requested the Commission recommend the bill to the 2009 Legislature. She said the bill entitled an inmate to have DNA testing at his own expense.

She said her other item of discussion, Agenda Item VI-D, was eyewitness identification. She provided a large packet of exhibit material for the Commission. She asked the Commissioners to look at the photo lineup included in her materials.

Ms. Brown read further statements from her exhibits.
Chair Hardesty said the Commission had Ms. Brown’s material and he asked her to make a policy issue. Ms. Brown recommended the Commission needed to study misidentification and recommend to the Legislature they do a case study.


Prisoner Sues for “Evidence of Injustice”

From Make the Walls Transparent:

Prisoner Sues for “Evidence of Injustice”

Posted By MTWT – Lucy On August 22, 2009

Prisoner files lawsuit against Cortez Masto and three Deputy Attorney Generals for Failure to Correct False Testimony

Roger Libby has been in prison in Nevada for 19 years, almost all of which were spent on death row after his conviction for the killing of two men in Humboldt County in 1990.

Libby’s conviction was exclusively based on circumstantial forensic evidence provided by the FBI’s crime lab through an “expert” on Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA), which compared the chemical composition of lead in various recovered bullets

Mr. Libby’s lawsuit alleges that Defendants Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and three Deputy Attorney Generals; David K. Neidert, John M. Warwick and Heather D. Proctor, while acting under the color of state law, conspired to and have in fact denied Mr. Libby his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing false evidence to go uncorrected based on the knowledge that such evidence is false. Furthermore, the suit alleges, the denial of his due process rights resulted in a consequential loss of liberty sufficient to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment (Charles Pillar, FBI Abandons Controversial Bullet-Matching Technique, Los Angeles Times, September 2, 2005). FBI Laboratory Director Dwight Adams said that the decision to discontinue CBLA at the FBI Laboratory was “based primarily on the inability of scientists or manufacturers to definitively evaluate the significance of an association between bullets made in the count of a bullet lead examination.” (Press Release, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation)

The Washington Postand CBS Sixty Minutes television news program recently completed an investigation into comparative bullet lead analysis and its promotion by the FBI Laboratory. As a result of these investigations, 60 Minutes aired a program titled Evidence of Injustice on November 18, 2007. On this program, Dwight Adams, Director of the FBI Laboratory conceded that comparative bullet lead analysis was scientifically unsupported and misleading to the point of false testimony.

As a result of the 60 Minutes program airing on CBS on November 18, 2007, Mr. Libby filed a Motion to Supplement his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with supporting exhibits, including a DVD of the 60 Minutes program; therefore, Defendants are aware that Mr. Libby’s conviction is based on false testimony, and they have failed to take any action whatsoever to correct evidence and testimony known to be false, despite their constitutional duty to do so.

Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (N.R.S) 228.210, if the Attorney General neglects or refuses to perform any of the duties required of him by law, he is guilty of a misdemeanor or is subject to removal from office.

Defendants have known that to allow Mr. Libby’s conviction to stand based on the knowledge that the evidence was falsified and a denial of due process occurs where the state allows false evidence to go uncorrected. (Brady v Maryland)

Mr. Libby is asking for damages in excess of $1 million for the nearly 20 years he has been imprisoned based on evidence the Attorney General of the State of Nevada knows is false.

MTWT wishes Mr. Libby well on his lawsuit and we hope that he is awarded in excess of $1 million dollars for his time in prison, not only because he deserves it, but as a lesson to other deputy attorney generals and district attorneys who knowingly fail to correct false testimony, robbing people of their freedom and their lives.

Please contact Roger Libby for more information or if you have information for him:

Roger Libby #30842
Ely State Prison
P.O. Box 1989
Ely, NV 89301

UN Principles for detention or imprisonment

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment .
See also: Standard Minimum Rule for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988
Scope of the Body of Principles.
These principles apply for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment.

Use of Terms
For the purposes of the Body of Principles:

( a ) “Arrest” means the act of apprehending a person for the alleged commission of an offence or by the action of an authority;

( b ) “Detained person” means any person deprived of personal liberty except as a result of conviction for an offence;

( c ) “Imprisoned person” means any person deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence;

( d ) “Detention” means the condition of detained persons as defined above;

( e ) “Imprisonment” means the condition of imprisoned persons as defined above;

( f ) The words “a judicial or other authority” means a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence.

Principle 1
All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Principle 2
Arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose.

Principle 3
There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights of persons under any form of detention or imprisonment recognized or existing in any State pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that this Body of Principles does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

Principle 4
Any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority.

Principle 5
1. These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of any given State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Measures applied under the law and designed solely to protect the rights and special status of women, especially pregnant women and nursing mothers, children and juveniles, aged, sick or handicapped persons shall not be deemed to be discriminatory. The need for, and the application of, such measures shall always be subject to review by a judicial or other authority.

Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1 No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Principle 7
1. States should prohibit by law any act contrary to the rights and duties contained in these principles, make any such act subject to appropriate sanctions and conduct impartial investigations upon complaints.

2. Officials who have reason to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers.

3. Any other person who has ground to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has occurred or is about to occur shall have the right to report the matter to the superiors of the officials involved as well as to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers.

Principle 8
Persons in detention shall be subject to treatment appropriate to their unconvicted status. Accordingly, they shall, whenever possible, be kept separate from imprisoned persons.

Principle 9
The authorities which arrest a person, keep him under detention or investigate the case shall exercise only the powers granted to them under the law and the exercise of these powers shall be subject to recourse to a judicial or other authority.

Principle 10
Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

Principle 11
1. A person shall not be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority. A detained person shall have the right to defend himself or to be assisted by counsel as prescribed by law.

2. A detained person and his counsel, if any, shall receive prompt and full communication of any order of detention, together with the reasons therefor.

3. A judicial or other authority shall be empowered to review as appropriate the continuance of detention.

Principle 12
1. There shall be duly recorded:

( a ) The reasons for the arrest;

( b ) The time of the arrest and the taking of the arrested person to a place of custody as well as that of his first appearance before a judicial or other authority;

( c ) The identity of the law enforcement officials concerned;

( d ) Precise information concerning the place of custody.

2. Such records shall be communicated to the detained person, or his counsel, if any, in the form prescribed by law.

Principle 13
Any person shall, at the moment of arrest and at the commencement of detention or imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided by the authority responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment, respectively with information on and an explanation of his rights and how to avail himself of such rights.

Principle 14
A person who does not adequately understand or speak the language used by the authorities responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment is entitled to receive promptly in a language which he understands the information referred to in principle 10, principle 11, paragraph 2, principle 12, paragraph 1, and principle 13 and to have the assistance, free of charge, if necessary, of an interpreter in connection with legal proceedings subsequent to his arrest.

Principle 15
Notwithstanding the exceptions contained in principle 16, paragraph 4, and principle 18, paragraph 3, communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world, and in particular his family or counsel, shall not be denied for more than a matter of days.

Principle 16
1. Promptly after arrest and after each transfer from one place of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody.

2. If a detained or imprisoned person is a foreigner, he shall also be promptly informed of his right to communicate by appropriate means with a consular post or the diplomatic mission of the State of which he is a national or which is otherwise entitled to receive such communication in accordance with international law or with the representative of the competent international organization, if he is a refugee or is otherwise under the protection of an intergovernmental organization.

3. If a detained or imprisoned person is a juvenile or is incapable of understanding his entitlement, the competent authority shall on its own initiative undertake the notification referred to in the present principle. Special attention shall be given to notifying parents or guardians.

4. Any notification referred to in the present principle shall be made or permitted to be made without delay. The competent authority may however delay a notification for a reasonable period where exceptional needs of the investigation so require.

Principle 17
1. A detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of a legal counsel. He shall be informed of his right by the competent authority promptly after arrest and shall be provided with reasonable facilities for exercising it.

2. If a detained person does not have a legal counsel of his own choice, he shall be entitled to have a legal counsel assigned to him by a judicial or other authority in all cases where the interests of justice so require and without payment by him if he does not have sufficient means to pay.

Principle 18
1. A detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to communicate and consult with his legal counsel.

2. A detained or imprisoned person shall be allowed adequate time and facilities for consultation with his legal counsel.

3. The right of a detained or imprisoned person to be visited by and to consult and communicate, without delay or censorship and in full confidentiality, with his legal counsel may not be suspended or restricted save in exceptional circumstances, to be specified by law or lawful regulations, when it is considered indispensable by a judicial or other authority in order to maintain security and good order.

4. Interviews between a detained or imprisoned person and his legal counsel may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of a law enforcement official.

5. Communications between a detained or imprisoned person and his legal counsel mentioned in the present principle shall be inadmissible as evidence against the detained or imprisoned person unless they are connected with a continuing or contemplated crime.

Principle 19
A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with, in particular, members of his family and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations.

Principle 20
If a detained or imprisoned person so requests, he shall if possible be kept in a place of detention or imprisonment reasonably near his usual place of residence.

Principle 21
1. It shall be prohibited to take undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against any other person.

2. No detained person while being interrogated shall be subject to violence, threats or methods of interrogation which impair his capacity of decision or his judgement.

Principle 22
No detained or imprisoned person shall, even with his consent, be subjected to any medical or scientific experimentation which may be detrimental to his health.

Principle 23
1. The duration of any interrogation of a detained or imprisoned person and of the intervals between interrogations as well as the identity of the officials who conducted the interrogations and other persons present shall be recorded and certified in such form as may be prescribed by law.

2. A detained or imprisoned person, or his counsel when provided by law, shall have access to the information described in paragraph 1 of the present principle.

Principle 24
A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary. This care and treatment shall be provided free of charge.

Principle 25
A detained or imprisoned person or his counsel shall, subject only to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in the place of detention or imprisonment, have the right to request or petition a judicial or other authority for a second medical examination or opinion.

Principle 26
The fact that a detained or imprisoned person underwent a medical examination, the name of the physician and the results of such an examination shall be duly recorded. Access to such records shall be ensured. Modalities therefore shall be in accordance with relevant rules of domestic law.

Principle 27
Non-compliance with these principles in obtaining evidence shall be taken into account in determining the admissibility of such evidence against a detained or imprisoned person.

Principle 28
A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to obtain within the limits of available resources, if from public sources, reasonable quantities of educational, cultural and informational material, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in the place of detention or imprisonment.

Principle 29
1. In order to supervise the strict observance of relevant laws and regulations, places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention or imprisonment.

2. A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to communicate freely and in full confidentiality with the persons who visit the places of detention or imprisonment in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present principle, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in such places.

Principle 30
1. The types of conduct of the detained or imprisoned person that constitute disciplinary offences during detention or imprisonment, the description and duration of disciplinary punishment that may be inflicted and the authorities competent to impose such punishment shall be specified by law or lawful regulations and duly published.

2. A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be heard before disciplinary action is taken. He shall have the right to bring such action to higher authorities for review.

Principle 31
The appropriate authorities shall endeavour to ensure, according to domestic law, assistance when needed to dependent and, in particular, minor members of the families of detained or imprisoned persons and shall devote a particular measure of care to the appropriate custody of children left with out supervision.

Principle 32
1. A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay, if it is unlawful.

2. The proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of the present principle shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained persons without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.

Principle 33
1. A detained or imprisoned person or his counsel shall have the right to make a request or complaint regarding his treatment, in particular in case of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, to the authorities responsible for the administration of the place of detention and to higher authorities and, when necessary, to appropriate authorities vested with reviewing or remedial powers.

2. In those cases where neither the detained or imprisoned person nor his counsel has the possibility to exercise his rights under paragraph 1 of the present principle, a member of the family of the detained or imprisoned person or any other person who has knowledge of the case may exercise such rights.

3. Confidentiality concerning the request or complaint shall be maintained if so requested by the complainant.

4. Every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without undue delay. If the request or complaint is rejected or, in case of inordinate delay, the complainant shall be entitled to bring it before a judicial or other authority. Neither the detained or imprisoned person nor any complainant under paragraph 1 of the present principle shall suffer prejudice for making a request or complaint.

Principle 34
Whenever the death or disappearance of a detained or imprisoned person occurs during his detention or imprisonment, an inquiry into the cause of death or disappearance shall be held by a judicial or other authority, either on its own motion or at the instance of a member of the family of such a person or any person who has knowledge of the case. When circumstances so warrant, such an inquiry shall be held on the same procedural basis whenever the death or disappearance occurs shortly after the termination of the detention or imprisonment. The findings of such inquiry or a report thereon shall be made available upon request, unless doing so would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation.

Principle 35
1. Damage incurred because of acts or omissions by a public official contrary to the rights contained in these principles shall be compensated according to the applicable rules or liability provided by domestic law.

2. Information required to be recorded under these principles shall be available in accordance with procedures provided by domestic law for use in claiming compensation under the present principle.

Principle 36
1. A detained person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent and shall be treated as such until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. The arrest or detention of such a person pending investigation and trial shall be carried out only for the purposes of the administration of justice on grounds and under conditions and procedures specified by law. The imposition of restrictions upon such a person which are not strictly required for the purpose of the detention or to prevent hindrance to the process of investigation or the administration of justice, or for the maintenance of security and good order in the place of detention shall be forbidden.

Principle 37
A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of detention. No person may be kept under detention pending investigation or trial except upon the written order of such an authority. A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority, have the right to make a statement on the treatment received by him while in custody.

Principle 38
A person detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

Principle 39
Except in special cases provided for by law, a person detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled, unless a judicial or other authority decides otherwise in the interest of the administration of justice, to release pending trial subject to the conditions that may be imposed in accordance with the law. Such authority shall keep the necessity of detention under review.

General clause
Nothing in this Body of Principles shall be construed as restricting or derogating from any right defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1 The term “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently. of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his awareness of place and the passing of time.

Another Nevada prisoner death at Ely State Prison

From Nevada Prisoner Voice:


Ricky Vell Masters, Age 50 and 8 Months
Born 12/10/58 Died 08/12/2009

Location: The Infirmary
Cause of Death: Pending
Manner of Death: Pending

Did Mr. Masters repeatedly request help for days before he died?

NOTE: In our opinion, families need to ask their loved ones in prison to provide them instructions in case of their deaths, whether it is by NDOC or any prison system neglect, or by their own hands.

If Nevada Department of Corrections’ (NDOC) cremation is not desired, loved ones need to notify wardens and the director’s office, in writing, that they don’t want NDOC cremation, that loved ones will make their own arrangements.

It has been reported that NDOC officials have allowed prisoner remains to be cremated prior to notifying loved ones.

Take positive action to create control today. Create a paper trail for lawsuit purposes, in the tragic event that this may happen to someone you love.

Article: Prison guards try to incite riots to keep their jobs (NSP)

Nevada State Prison, which still looks like this, is one of the nation’s oldest prisons, dating from 1862.

Published in: SF Bay View, August 11th, 2009

Editor’s note: The Bay View has been hearing from prisoners around the country that guards, fearing the loss of their jobs, are enraged by budget cuts and plans to release prisoners and close prisons. In some cases they are intensifying their harassment and torture of prisoners and in others they are trying to incite them to riot. That may be a factor in the Chino State Prison “race riot” and fire on Sunday, Aug. 9, just outside Los Angeles that injured more than 250 prisoners, destroyed one dorm and made most of the others uninhabitable. The Nevada prisons are generally considered some of the worst in the country. Here’s what’s happening there:

by Raymond Watison

Prisoners at Nevada State Prison are pleading for help. We truly believe that the administration is intentionally inflaming conflict. Not only are tensions between inmates rising, but those between correctional officers and inmates are at an all-time high.

Most importantly, we are starting to become angry because of an ugly rumor that is circulating in this institution. Word is we are deliberately being used for political gain due to the budget cuts.

We are starting to believe that we are, against our own will, being pushed to the edge so that the administration can make their case for more funds.

I have no choice but to reach out with this letter because other attempts to find assistance have been spoiled by what we call abuse of authority. The prison administration is abusing the disciplinary system that is designed for the safety and security of inmates’ rights.

The administration is trying to quiet our questions about their aggressive behavior. Not only the correctional officers but the administrators too are participants.

There is a grievance complaint system in place that we can no longer trust. This administration has given correctional officers the authority to either approve or deny inmate rights by doing away with the grievance procedure and to punish us for exercising our rights.

This is causing correctional officers to become very aggressive toward inmates. They refuse to obey their own rules and regulations without fear of consequences from any of the administrators.

We here at Nevada State Prison, like so many other prisoners around the globe, learn among ourselves that we are brothers in a never ending struggle. Seeking not to cause violence, we are trying hard to remain brothers because we recognize the administration’s motives in pushing us to cause destruction.

So I ask – no, I beg – you to intervene. You are our only hope. Is there any help for a widow’s son?

How you can help
Nevada State Prison is in Carson City, the state capital. Call, email, fax or write a letter today to Nevada Corrections Director Howard Skolnik, Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702, phone (775) 887-3216, fax (775) 887-3253, email [3]. He has responded before to pressure, and he will again.

Calls directly to the prison may also help. Call Warden Gregory Smith at (775) 882-8588.

Send our brother some love and light: Raymond Watison, 1031835, Nevada State Prison, P.O. Box 607, Carson City NV 89702.

Washoe opens new vocational center for jail inmates

August 4, 2009

Reno Gazette-Journal

Staff Report

The new Washoe County Jail vocational center will provide inmates with training to help them secure employment once they are released, Deputy Brooke Keast said.

It is built on the same site as the 14-year-old self-supporting Washoe County Detention Facility Industries, a jail program that produces printing, plastic bag manufacturing and packing services.

Officials hope the new facility will reduce recidivism.

“This expanded industry program will help to teach inmates more marketable job skills and work ethics, increasing viability in the local job market once they are released,” Sheriff Mike Haley said in a news release. “We expect to save in the long run with less repeat offenders coming through our facility.”

Inmate nearly dies of treatable Conditions and Diseases (NNCC)

Received via email:

On Sunday, July 27, 2009 I received calls from inmates at NNCC telling me about an inmate that I personally knew had been taken to the Carson Tahoe Hospital for excessive bleeding. I was told that this inmate was bleeding out of all of his orifices. On Thursday I received word from RMF that this inmate’s had been stabilized and was returned to RMF Wednesday night.

I know for the last several months this inmate has been complaining about the severe pain in his stomach and had been unable to see the doctor since his transfer to Warm Springs. Approximately 2 weeks before this happened the director was contacted regarding the condition of this inmate. The Director immediately had this inmate transferred back to RMF to undergo medical treatment that he had not been receiving.

On August 1, 2009 this inmate I know just called me and told me what had happened to him. Here are the details. This inmate said that on Sunday he was complaining of severe stomach pain that when he was having a bowel movement nothing but blood came out. He was feeling dizzy etc. He was asked if he had been vomiting which the inmate had not at that time. Then all of a sudden the inmate began projectile vomiting of blood all over the equipment. When they went to went to take his vital signs showing his blood pressure was 50/17 the person thought that his equipment was not working. The Ambulance rechecked his vitals and his blood pressure was 50/17.

The inmate was rushed to the Carson Tahoe hospital and was given 6 units of saline solution and 4 units of whole blood everything was going numb.. H was told he lost over half of his blood. They did 2 MRI’s that showed that he had an upper GI bleed out through his upper esophagus. The last thing the inmate remembered was the doctors placing a scope down his throat. The doctors fixed all of his problems. Well let’s hope and pray so.

Just so you know that this inmate was never seen for his severe stomach pains that he was having in excess of 10 months. Had NDOC treated him months ago this would have been discovered. He also was not being treated among other medical problems he was having that was discovered in November 2007 when he contracted MRSA. One of the medical problems that was discovered nearly 2 years ago and he was not being treated for and should have been was Hemochromotosis, a life threatening disease, a blood disorder that stores to much iron in your blood and can cause your vital organs to shut down. This treatment is relatively inexpensive that which requires blood to be taken out 1-2 times a week for 4 months. It should be noted that this inmate suffers from Hep C, and the ongoing complications from the MRSA he contracted nearly 2 years ago.

NDOC is negligent no ifs ands or buts about it. This inmate will be suing over this..

Tonja Brown

Another Nevada Prisoner Death at High Desert State Prison

Taken over from Nevada Prisoner Voice:

WILLIAM J. BROOKS, Age 51 and Five Months
Born 2/13/58 Died 7/22/2009

Can a Nevada prison sentence become a death sentence? Yes, we think it can.

Did Mr. Brooks lie gasping on the yard without rapid officer response or medical assistance?

Did prison officials take Mr. Brooks, reported as diabetic, to the hospital or did he die in the infirmary?

No telephone response at High Desert State Prison… Nevada State Highway Patrol Trooper also called HDSP, but also got no response

7:18 PM 29 July 2009…
Confirmation or denial of this report as soon as contact can be made with prisons officials… Efforts were made to confirm Mr. Brooks’ death through Nevada prison officials 30 July 2009 AM… to no avail.

But, at 10:23 AM this morning, 30 July 2009, the Clark County Coroner’s Office confirmed Mr. Brooks’ death. Nevada prisoners have shorter average life spans than those of free citizens in the USA, based upon current information that we are compiling.