--
To:
Ms. Bayless, SCU Unit Manager
Re:
TRULINCS Electronic Messaging restriction reasons
Ms.
Bayless, I received a notice from you last year, dated March 22, 2013,
informing me of the reasons I have been restricted from using the TRULINCS
(Electronic Messaging) program for prisoner. The reason given in this notice
was as follows:
“A
review of your personal history, prior offense conduct and convictions has been
completed. Based on this review, it has been deemed that your history of
behavior could jeopardize legitimate penological interests. Therefore, you have
been precluded from TRULINCS program participation.”
This “reason”
does not give the specific past behavior(s) in my case that “could jeopardize
legitimate penological interests”, as required by the BOP policy concerning
TRULINCS Restrictions. Program Statement No. p5265. 13, Section 3, states
explicitly, “Inmates excluded from program participation under this section are
not notified on the specific reason(s)…” and (in sub section a.) “An inmate’s
exclusion from program participation must be based on his/her individual history
of behavior […] inmates generally classified with a Public Safety Factor – Sex Offender,
are not automatically excluded from participation, as their personal history
may not have involved the specific examples cited above.”
The
examples cited were, “soliciting minors for sexual activity, or
possession/distribution of child pornography through the Internet or other
means, […] an inmate with special skill or knowledge of using
computers/e-mail/Internet or other communication methods as a conduit for
committing illegal activities.”
My case
history does not reflect any of these specific behaviors. So, if there is some
other specific past behavior that I am being restricted from using the TRULINCS
messaging program for then I would like to be duly informed so that I might
initiate a challenge if appropriate.
Thank
you
J.
Duncan, USP 12561023
SCU
C-416
--
To which she eventually replied:
--
FROM:
USP SCU Unit
TO:
12561023
SUBJECT:
RE: ***Inmate to Staff Message***
DATE:
03/12/2014 01:52:02 PM
Mr.
Duncan,
The
information in the memo was the specifics, i.e. personal history, offense
conduct, etc. Due to those specifics, you were deemed inappropriate for program
participation. Your personal history indicates that you have knowledge of
computers, as you ran a website. In regards to your offense conduct, in
multiple instances you have orally persuaded and/or forced minors into engaging
in sexual activity. Additionally, it indicated that in some instances you
videotaped these acts.
--M.
Bayless
--
I sent the following message:
--
FROM:
12561023
TO:
USP SCU Unit
SUBJECT:
***Request to Staff*** DUNCAN, JOSEPH, Reg# 12561023, THP-X-A
DATE:
03/17/2014 05:45:08 PM
To:
Ms. Bayless, SCU Unit Manager
Inmate
Work Assignment: None
Ms.
Bayless,
Thank
you for replying to my previous request concerning your decision to rest me
from using the TRULINCS electronic messaging program for prisoners. However, I feel
there is some misunderstanding regarding your interpretation of the BOP policy
that governs such restrictions (i.e. PS No. p.5265. 13 Section 3). So, I intend
to file a formal resolution and would like to first give you this opportunity
to resolve my concerns.
It
seems to me that someone in the BOP legal department carefully worded this
policy in order to perhaps avoid future libel actions against the bureau (i.e.,
to prevent the restriction policy from being used to arbitrarily punish sex
offenders for example). I can’t imagine any other reason they would be so
explicitly about what constitutes “legitimate penological interests” with
regard to restricting prisoners from access to the Internet, even if that
access is indirect, as with the TRULINCS program.
As I
have already pointed out in my previous “Request to Staff”, the policy gives
several examples of specific reasons for denying prisoners access to the
program. Every example given involves past behavior of illicit use of the
Internet.
None
of the reasons you gave in your response to my last request involves illicit
Internet use of any sort.
Specifically
you say, I am “inappropriate for program anticipation” because I have “knowledge
of computers”. The program statement says a reason for restriction is not just “knowledge
of computers”, but “knowledge of using computers/e-mail/Internet or other
communication methods as a conduit for committing illegal activities.” I have
no such knowledge since I have never used computers or the Internet in any way
to break the law, which my criminal record confirms.
You
also assert that I videotaped minors (engaged in sex), which I did. But I never
uploaded the videos to the web, e-mailed them, or transmitted them in any
fashion. In fact, the only illicit videos found when I was arrested had been
deleted shorty after they were made and had to be forensically recovered.
The
FBI and several other law enforcement agencies thoroughly investigated whether
or not I had any files on my computers of child pornography downloaded from the
Internet and they consistently found none, as they repeatedly testified in
court and in their affidavits (which I can and will produce if needed).
Also
you claim that I “orally persuaded and/or forced minors into engaging in sexual
activity.” Yes, I used force, but I have never used oral persuasion, or any
means that would be considered by any court “solicitation”, much less done so
through the Internet or any other means.
The
bottom line is that I have never used the Internet for illegal of illicit
activities and my criminal record and personal history reflect this claim. The
policy clearly indicates that sex offenders should not be restricted merely
because they committed sex crimes. The reason for restriction should invlve
some form of Internet abuse, not sex abuse or child abuse (unless the Internet
was used to do so).
I
hope you will review your decision in light of this information and reconsider.
Either way, I thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.
Sincerely,
Joseph
E. Duncan III
12561-023
SCU,
C-416
--
This
time she replied quickly and told me I could appeal if I wanted, that was all.
