DHO Report & Response

On January 26^th of this year (2015) I got a letter from my girlfriend that included some pictures of a famous French child model named Thylane Blondeau. For whatever reason my girlfriend sent me these pictures, it was not because I had asked her to. Thylane is famous for her «sexy» pictures, but none of her pictures are pornographic or against prison policy. The letter I received was opened an inspected by the mail room, and the pictures it contained were prominent and unconcealed in anyway. So when I received these pictures I had no reason to believe I was not permitted to have them. They were literally issued to me by the prison through the mail.

Then, on February 13^th (18 days later) a guard found one of these pictures of Thylane in a folder of drawing materials (I had drawn one of the pictures, of Thylane's face only, as a gift for my girlfriend because she said she liked the model's expression in the pictures), and he thought it «appears to be child pornography». 

Two months later there was a hearing by the «DHO» (Disciplinary Hearing Officer). I presented evidence (copies of Federal laws and B.O.P. policies) that showed that the picture was «perfectly legal» (i.e. did not violate any prison policies or Federal laws), and I even provided a copy of the letter that the picture came in (that showed clear references to the picture and explained why it was sent) to show that the picture had in fact been issued to me «through regular channels».

The DHO ignored the evidence (Federal laws and B.O.P. policies) and declared that the picture had been issued to me «by human error», for which I was responsible for. He found me guilty and imposed an unusually harsh sanction.

The cover of his report confirms the dates and times and other administrative information:

 

The DHO included a copy of the written statement that I provided him at the hearing in his official report. In this statement I clearly reference and explain all the evidence I presented, including a copy of the letter that accompanied the picture proving it was authorized and issued to me.

I also gave the DHO a supplementary statement concerning any supposed «threat» to the «orderly operation of the institution» hoping to thwart any accusations in that regard. The DHO included this in his report also.

 

 

Under «findings» in his report, the DHO fails to mention the hard evidence I presented him, and proceeds to completely distort and misconstrue Federal laws (by inventing his own definition for «child pornography» from dictionary definitions instead of using the Federal law definition that I gave him at the hearing) and B.O.P. policies (claiming that because I am a sex offender that special restrictions apply to me).

But, B.O.P. policy, the same «Program Statement» that the DHO references in his report as evidence against me, says very plainly that special restrictions for sex offenders can only be applied at SOMP (Sex Offender Management Program) institutions, and then only after an evaluation by specially trained psychology staff.

Of course, I am not at an SOMP prison, and no «special restrictions» have ever been set for me. So, I wrote a detailed response/appeal for the DHO's B.S... 

This appeal was rejected by the Regional Office because it was too long. So I shortened it to one page and resubmitted it. Please follow the "Child Porn" Update posts on 5NChronicles to find out what happens, and for more details about this incident, hearing, and appeal.