To: Ms. Bayless, SCU Unit Manager

   The following is an electronic “Request to Staff” that I sent to the SCU CUS (Special Confinement Unit, a.k.a. “death row”, Custody Unit Supervisor):

--

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.