Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report Vol. 3, No 5 (2013)

Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report
Vol. 3, No 5 “Veritas in Caritatis” Winter/Spring Issue 2013
THEME: “Audi alterum partem”
Listen to the other side!

“Voice of the Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison Report”

E-mail: nvjprudence@gmail.com
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, 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. Taking a Hard Right: Level System at NNCC

Section TWO: Law, Equity and Policy

1. Law Article Review: “The Emerging War on Sex Offenders”
2. Law Article Review: The Fusion of Power and Administration of Crime

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion

1. AA Now Sequestered by Exclusivist Program
2. Poem

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) Hard Right: NNCC “Level System”

Prisons in America has its historical roots in the Puritanical acceptance of Jeremy Bentham’s weird idea of the “Panoptican”—an idea derived from his “Principle of Inspection”. This historical principle was discussed in Nevada Jurisprudence and Prison News, Vol. 1, No. 10, “Pre-Trial Conditions”.

Bentham was inspired the Psalm of David that takes note of God’s invisible omniscience, by which God know all things, all thoughts, at all times. Bentham proposed the use of All-Seeing Architecture to impose the coercive power of the state. Bentham invented, by appealing to natural fear of God’s all-seeing eye, the psychological prison of the watchtower, the “bubble”, the gunpost, and the surveillance camera that now covers the entire Western industrial economy. “Panopticon” means all-seeing.

This biblical theology fused with the Puritan’s idea of turning the secular world into a monastic Empire where everyman is a highpriest of his own world. [How else can one say “welcome to my world?”] This is derived from the wild Calvinist theory of the “universal” priesthood of all men. This is why the Puritan were eager to embrace Bentham’s proposed prison system. With this in mind, we can interpret the recent actions by the State to increase the security level of the NNCC facility.

NNCC was the last “open” yard in Nevada prison system. After the 1990’s federal push for escalating the “war on crime”, all inmate-friendly managers in the Nevada Department of Corrections were hounded out by a new breed of puritanical zeal for pain infliction on the reprobate sinner-citizen. Any person who loses their “sainthood” are excommunicated by civil society.

The NDOC, though the warden Isidro Baca, has closed the open yard and created a “level system”.
Level 3 is lowest. Units 2 and 4 are level 3, comprising 360 men. They have no access to daily yard. They have no access to the gym or weights, ever. They have no access to psycho-programming required by the state for good time and parole release. They have no access to work that keeps their hope for statutory “good time” alive. There are an inordinate number of “litigators” kept in this level, meaning the prison system is psychologically “conditioning” mass behaviors by rewarding the effete and timid and punishing the virtuous political citizen.

Level 1 is the highest, and gets the most privileges, and it is reserved ONLY to those who genuflect and adore the pagan god of the government, the GAIN SPIRIT. ONLY those who have a PAY NUMBER can join the Level One “blessed and highly favored”. So, we see a religification of a state prison system, and a paganization of a supposedly Christian theology of “puritanism”.

Level 2 aspires to escape the shame and stigma of level 3, and clamors to one day to join the Holy Ones who have a paycheck. The problem is, there are no jobs, and prayerfully the Nevada economy will continue to tank, and take its pagan psycho-babble level system with it. May ghost-township come soon to Nevada! (To be continued…)

Section Two: Law and Equity

1) Law Article Review: “The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders” by Corey Rayburn Yung, 45 Harvard Law Review, C. R. –C.L.L. 435 (2010)

The Adam Walsh Act and its progenitors have been challenged in all the Federal District Courts, and has been upheld in almost all of them. One decision HAS found the S.O.R.N.A. provisions of registration Un-constitutional. In 2008, a U.S. District Court in (of all places) Florida, stated:

“While sex offenders may be the least sympathetic lot of society, the law does not recognize a distinction between everyman’s right to travel and a sex offender’s travel. And, an exception for them today may bring tomorrow’s application to all”. 

This is a Bright-Line Rule!

In other words, there are certain rights which, at least in a Christian concept of law which is grounded in Natural Law, recognizes certain Bright-line rules of substantive and procedural rights which are valid and applicable to All people, at all times, everywhere. Without Exception.

But this principle of objective ethical principles of law has been corrupted by so-called “reformed” theology that DOES allow for exceptions—those who are predestined by God for perdition are the exceptions. How convenient to have the moral power to determine WHO is marked God for a destiny of hell, and make an “exception” to the Bright Line Rules of Law. This is to sub-humanize certain “lost souls” as unworthy of equal treatment before the law. This theological perversion is called the “absolute depravity” of men, and the principle of double predestination—either saved or hound for Hell.

When you hear a person declare “he deserves a fate worse than death”, you are witness to the manifestation of this so-called “Christian” reformed theology which allows for exceptions to the Rule of Law. When you hear the words “worse than death”, you are hearing either a pagan devil worshipper or an evangelical “Christian”: they both glorify vigilante-lynch-mob justice.

This article by Corey Yung is by far the most radically courageous acts of any academic I’ve read recently. Anybody who takes an objective, scientific look at such an “apple-pie” issue is bound to find themselves attacked, and Yung needs prayers.

Yung’s article can be fairly criticized on one point: it is blind to the deeper roots of the “War –on-Crime”. Historically, the article needed to have pointed out Saint Thomas More’s much despised work Utopia, and his trenchant critique of the English “war-on-crime” in the late 1400’s, situationally determined by the economics of industrial production of sheep wool to clothe the militarization of eh early British Empire. The writer could have mentioned Jeremy Bentham’s coining of the word “war-on-crime” at the height of the British industrialization, in the early 1800’s.

Yung starts only with the recent American escalation of the “war-on-crime”, pinning most of the blame on the “war-on-drugs”. She seems not to be aware of the radical feminist roots of the current “war-on-sex offender”, as identified historically by Marie Gottschalk[1].

Other than these oversights, this article hopefully will work its way out of the ivory towers and get into the hands of some honorable and courageous legislators. It is vastly important that people “realize how controlled they are by the PROPAGANDA of the Industrial Empire, and crime.

Yung identifies precise rhetorical MYTH’s utilized by the Criminal Justice Community that is the lobbyist name for the Criminal Justice Industry. Yung traces the evil transmogrification of normal “law enforcement that escalates into a criminal WAR”. (437, emphasis added) She describes how RHETORIC is utilized, becoming a “multi-faceted public discourse wherein the population is exposed to the warrants for the conflict through a variety of mediums. For example, television advertisements, television episodes [police shows] movies, new reports from various sources, local [pro-victim] activist groups, bumper stickers combine to send a message justifying a war” (443, inserts added).

Her contributions in identifying the “characteristics of Criminal Wars” used in the1970’s War-on-Drugs opens the doors for further research. The characteristics she defines as follows:

1.) Marshaling of Resources—that is, the government provides money and contributes surplus war hardware and financial incentives. Her description make us realize that we are prisoners of war.

2.) Myth Creation—meaning a mytho-poetic “creation of substantial myths about the danger” of the targeted enemy, drug users, sex offenders etc. she teaches about a sophisticated sophism called a “condensation symbol”: names, words, phrases or maxims” that evoke discrete, vivid impression in each listener’s mind, and also involves the listener’s most basic values…”[2]

3.) Exception Making—“as in international wars, criminal wars are marked by DEVIATIONS FROM NORMAL CODES OF CONDUCT.” (444)

Yung cites how this occurs in the current “war on terror”—permissible torture, suspension of Geneva Conventions, use of private mercenary corporations, domestic surveillance. She then cites what this writer hollers about all the time, exceptions that are crafted into normal law enforcement rules, designed to make loop-holes to the Bright-line rules of the Bill-of-Rights. She notes the massive militarization of civil police, which gives the governments exceptional legal and technological tools in the wars on crime, along with money!

Yung’s analysis of the sex-crime scene leaves no doubt there is a “war” on sex offenders. Under the Myth Making rubric, Yung identifies 5 myths that have “served as cornerstones to America’s sex offender policy”:

1.) Stanger Danger—conceals the fact that sex crime is a family and community crime, and stranger sex crime is rare. The myth hides the destruction of family relations, because most sex crimes are family based.

2.) High Recidivism—myths of “incurability” justify and conceal the government destruction of families and community, by permanent exile into prisons and the “life-time” supervision and travel restrictions. Studies show LOW recidivism.

3.) Sex offense homogeneity—all sex offenders are alike, from serial stalker rapists to parking lot pee-ers. (Nevada has a boat-load of pee offenders.) This is a new myth, according to Yung, and deserving of further consideration.

4.) Molestation as “Fate Worse than Death”(457). This is where Yung brings up the notion mentioned at footnote 1. Yung devotes only one paragraph to the notions of “innocence and virginity” as the basis of the war-drum gravity intoned by fear-mongering, puritanical statists, which uses the concealing myth to justify sadistic increase in pain infliction.

5.) Enemy creation—the typical “yellow peril” war rhetoric INVENTED by Woodrow Wilson’s NWI anti-German campaign led by experts in motivational psychology, and Edward Bernys’ Office of War Information. This is basically an alliance between local government and special interest war-on-crime consortia lobbies, and mass media outlets, creating an almost unanimous public support for the war-on-sex offenders. The biggest supporters of this war are prison inmates themselves, as everyone knows in the back of their mind.

6.) Rational Unanimity—one myth which is overlooked by Yung and most others is the phenomena identified by René Girard as unanimous mimetic violence—herd behaviors.

There is a legal maxim in the Judeo-Christian tradition which says that if a proposition has met no opposition during debate or hearing, and is unanimously agreed to, it is probably a wrong decision. The whole sex crime issue can be seen as a scandal that until this article by Yung, nobody stands up against. The escalating war on MALE sex offense started in the 1970’s and 1980”, and laws relating to them can, at least in Nevada, be confirmed (by looking at the record) as having been carried unanimously by the legislatures. Rational discourse always requires a pro-con circumspection, and foresight of real consequences. Herd lynch-mob thinking operates on the fear of uncertainty, and is irrational.

The most important section in this article is on the”exception making”, which are basically loopholes for police powers to get around the Bright-Line safeguards and privileges of individuals, and protects lower order institutions of family and the local parish. This is to be discussed in later articles.

2) Law Article Review: “Separation of Powers and the Criminal Law” by Rachel E. Barkow, 58 Stanford Law Review 989-1054 (2005-2006)

In trust and probate law of inheritance and wills, there is legal principle called the “presumption of good faith”. This presumption arises from a duty of the civil courts to respect the wishes of the deceased person leaving behind instructions. For example, if the person making the will (a testator) selects a trustee to administer his will, it is PRESUMED the trustee was “trusted” by the testator, and the judge will adopt this same presumed trust. It is fairly difficult to overcome this presumption of good faith that the trustee will do what the deceased wills him to do.

Now, consider that this same principle of what is basically family law of trusts is applicable in the administrative law of governmental bureaucracy. The individuals who work for the government administration of all three branches (judicial, legislative and executive) possess and operate under what is called the “public trust”. All of us under the government shadow operate on “the presumption of good faith”. We hope, and have faith that government workers will act in the best interests of all, or the “common good”, or commonweal. To insure this good faith is psychologically coerced, we see three conditioning factors set up in the constitutions and statutes.

Deterrence factors are built into the statutes by sanctions of civil and criminal punishment of those who dare violate the public trust. Reward factors are also built in by honors and pay increase, in addition to the moral-religious duty to civic virtue.

The third factor is the due process safeguards built into the administrative system to ensure that the best interests of the public trust are met. Both State and Federal bureaucracies have adopted over the last century very strict standards of rulemaking. In other words, when most agencies make up rules that affect the general public, they follow the rule making guidelines of the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA), at both levels of government. This mostly controls the executive branch, who are allocated money by the legislative branch, and told by the legislature’s “enabling act” what the money is for, and leaves the “how to” up to the agency, which requires rules.

Now, the courts in the early days of state and federal administrations were the only insurance that the government would be “checked” and “balanced”. An affected party had to sue and allege, like in trust law, a breach of good faith by the “trustee”, the government bureaucrats.

But over time, internal administrative safeguards of due process were put in place so that now, citizens are given a “grievance procedure” prior to lawsuit. This internal safeguard of rulemaking also includes the notifying of the public when rules are to be made, allowing public comment, and holding evidentiary hearings. All this produces a very strong “presumption of good faith” by the courts.

This article by Rachel Barkow puts forth the Revolutionary Fact: this “presumption of good faith” adopted by the courts in civil-administrative law has crept over into the judicial thinking in Criminal Law! Let this dawn upon you: the executive branch attorney, police and courts are blessed with the presumption of good faith without the strict processes of oversight and due processes that act as safeguards against the growth of unfair and unjust rules!

This, says Barkow, is NOT what the Bill of Rights had in mind. The Bill of Rights, as ought to be clear, were based on the real plausibility (if not presumption) of BAD FAITH on the part of the executive branch agents, and sought Bright-Line Rules to protect individual persons against the high likelihood of the corrosive effects which power has on people.

This is a must read article by all citizens, but alas, it is a long and daunting task; and challenges a presumption which has risen to the level of a theological doctrine of belief. Such “religious” doctrines arising in the atheistic or pagan context are called myths which conceal the Truth. So the message Barkow announces is a difficult one to let sink in. we are subjected to 24-hour a day proganda from an early age and the general message from Hollywood and state-school civics courses is that we owe the executive branch lawyers and police a “presumption of good faith”. But if you read the Bill of Rights, you realize this is an oxymoron, like “military intelligence”. Barkow’s only error is to think challenges to this doctrine would succeed only at the federal level. This writer believes natural law, equity, and the Fourteenth Amendment opens up challenges for state prisoners.

Section Three: Art, Culture, Education and Religion

1) Monopolization of Prison Volunteers

The last AA group at NNCC, a Spanish speaking group run by outside volunteers. The last English language group had its last meeting in March 2013. This would make deceased Al Garcia. While he was on the yard for his 20 years, he had up to 10 or 15 groups per week!

One of the Alcoholics Anonymous traditions states that AA shall not “lend its name to any outside enterprise lest problems of money property and PRESTIGE divert us from our primary purpose, to carry the message…”

There ARE A.A. groups available. But only if one has the fortunate PRESTIGE of being associated with the so-called “TRUE CRIT” therapy program which is give Level One status. The founder-director of this program has arranged for outside members to come to her private queendom to let AA and NA have meetings for this “Senior Structured Living Program”, (SSLP). This regulation of exclusion of non-seniors (under 55 years old) of AA meetings constitutes AA’s own rules of non-association, and violates the rights of a protected class—men who cannot or will not join or cannot qualify for membership to this exclusive program.

2) Poem: A Love of Hate, by L.G.

The message passes cell by cell:
“It looks like someone else just died—
I hope it’s not a guy I know”
Thank God! It’s just old man McBride.

His final issue stains the bed.
Despite his sagging skin, and gray old hair,
He was a pretty good ol’ boy—
So why does no one seem to care?

The guards come running, shuffling in
They stand around, and each one fumbles
With their consciences’ and keys.
“He does look pretty far gone” one mumbles.

The nurse comes trudging, snapping her gloves
She pokes his neck and shakes her head
“The pulse is gone”, she says with a yawn.
“McBride… I’m sure it’s better he’s dead”.

So now it’s just formality—
To fake the report, tie on the tag
To the toe of this nasty abnormality
“Roll up his shit, let’s stuff him in the bag!”

Why not let him home to die?
He’s someone’s brother, granpa, dad.
“He’s a piece of shit, fuck’m, fie!
We kill ‘em here because they’re bad!”

I guess they’re right, its not surprising
He wasn’t pretty, but ugly and old.
It’s sure a vile eulogy
“Call the coroner he’s getting cold”.

[1] Yung rashly and wrongly blames “patriarchal notions”, citing “The Patriarchal Rhetoric Driving Capital Rape Statutes”, 78 St. John’s L.R. 1119 written by same author Yung.

[2] Citing “Rhetoric in the War on Drugs”, Elwood, 1994.

Advertisements