Appeal Three

click parrots for information

Here Mr Silverstein goes into depth on the case against overuse of solitary confinement, citing cases and stressing the psychiological dterioration casesd by the practise. It is a most eloquent essy.
If after reading this, you would like to help him join the human population, contact Tommy directly or write or email FFUP. Addresses below. If you do decide to write Tommy, feel free to use our PO Box for your address. Just be sure you give us your real address so we can forward his letters to you. Also, we are always available to answer questions or provide support as needed.
Tommy Silverstein 2-13-030-L;14634-116 USP Max; Box 8500; Florence, CO 81226
FFUP(Forum for Understanding Prisons); PO Box 285; Blue River, Wi 53518
swansol@mwt.net

From: Thomas E Silversiein 14634-116 Z .Florence Name, Reason for appeal: Mr Nally states my confinement is appropriate based on my repetitive history of violence and need for extreme security conditions. This ignores my none repetitive, none violent past, 23 years. Antiquated reliance and repetitive use of my history to justify my extreme conditions in 2006 proves more retaliatory than a legit Penalogical concern, since ADX Florence is a human tapestry of torture and sadism, where prisoners are isolated and forbidden to commingle with other prisoners except 5 hours a week. In individual repressive dog cages for outside recreation, like me, they don't come into contact with other humans unshackled. It's absurd for this Administration to pretend that I pose a security threat just because I'll be able to see / talk with other prisoners 5 hours a week. This pathetic ploy is merely devised to continue subjecting me to the diabolical rigour of Solitary Confinement in order to enhance and inflict as much Psychical trauma as possible, with malice and heartless indifference.
Mr Nally falsely claims my conditions aren't indefinite. After 23 years with no exit date nor criteria. I'd like to know his definition of ''"indefinite" When exactly will I be released or do I wait another 23 years for the same obscure prisoncratic double talk. As far as my status thoroughly reviewed every 6 months, I believe 6 month reviews do not comply with the policy remanded 30 days, nor was I reviewed the first 4 years of my isolation. What exactly is reviewed that determines whether or not I'm released from isolation today or 6 months from now. Do they draw straws till my number comes up? Contrary to Mr Nallys phoney spew that my conduct is noted and taken into consideration - that's a lie, evident by the fact despite my exemplary record I was punished when I was sent to Florence, and losing privileges earned at Leavenworth. Mr Nally just gives lip service for what should be done, but it's a sham since it is meaningless Psychological abuse / torture.
Isolation stems directly from brain washing techniques used during the Korean War. Sensory deprivation as a form of behaviour modification. The goal of this is clearly to disable me through spiritual, psychological or physical breakdown. Forced idleness, mail tampering, 24-7 visual audible surveillance, daily strip searches by female and male guards, sleep deprivation by night count guards. Dr Stuart Grassian, an expert on results of living in extended isolation, has commented at length on psychiatric harm that can come to people subjected to long-term isolation, who suffer serious symptoms of post - traumatic stress. He interviewed people who began to cut themselves just so they can "feel" something and reports panic attacks and a progress inability to tolerate ordinary stimulation. Isolation has been documented as a cause of paranoia, problems with impulse control, extreme motor restlessness, delusions, suspiciousness, confusion and depression. Dr Henry Weinstein, a Psychiatrist who has studied prisoners in isolation, says they suffered symptoms ranging from memory loss to severe anxiety to hallucinations to delusions, and under the severest cases of sensory deprivation, people go crazy. But some correctional experts say the trend towards solitary confinement makes their job more dangerous. Such a prisoner they say has no reason not to attack, main or even kill a guard, CNN - trend to toward solitary confinement worries expert - Jan 1998 by peg type, statistical evidence was accumulating showing confinement was the cause of very disturbing cases of insanity, physical disease and death in some cases.
As early as 1965, Dr M. Metzer, former chief officer at Alcatraz fed penitentiary, made his observations of psychiatric disturbances when persons were exposed to punitive solitary confinement at Alcatraz. He observed changes in motor skills ranging from the occasional tense pacing, restlessness and inner tension from noise -yelling, banging and assaultiveness at one end of the spectrum, to regressed, dissociated withdrawn hypnotic state, at the other end, per Metzer, sense of self, the ego and the ego boundary phenomena are profoundly effected by the isolation. In 1956 at a symposium of Psychiatrists, Dr John Lilly of the national institute of mental health contributed this to the pic of factors used to increase the susceptibility of individuals to forceful indoctrination... social and sensory isolation was still the central pathogenic factor in such confinement. The complied research from these models and other studies revealed there were symptoms that can be attributed to conditions of confinement. Some of these symptoms are: perceptual distortions, illusions, vivid fantasies, sometimes long with vivid hallucinations and hyperresponsivity to external stimuli along with these, some people developed observable syndromes which include cognitive impairment, massive free floating anxiety, extreme motor restlessness, emergence of punitive aggressive fantasies ( sometimes with fearful hallucinations) and in some cases, delirium like conditions, EEG's confirmed the same abnormalities typical of stupor and delirium. It was also seen that these "were organic changes in brain similar to stupor and delirium - The European Parliament investigated and determined SHU conditions " A form of unnecessary oppression which can be a form of psychological torture. Super maximum security prisons, sensory deprivation and effects of solitary confinement.
The existence and scope of these conditions are also in opposition to guidelines for treatment set in the international covenant on civil and political rights as well as the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. The department of corrections own psychiatrists and psychologists, the clinical director of Psychiatry at the esteemed Harvard University and even the U.S. Federal courts have acknowledged and ruled that solitary confinement causes sensory deprivation, which in turn causes substantial psychological damage. This is not a theory - it is a fact. The resultant symptoms of sensory deprivation are many and varied in degree. It affects everyone in different ways, but it does affect everyone. U.S. prison torture and. under article (1) of the united Nations Convention against torture; any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental obtaining from him or a. third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public officer or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. This confinement is a second sentence; the first by the court without a public defense, and the second completely out of the public eye and totally at the mercy and whim of the prisoncrats, as the Human Rights Watch report says: "Although some instances of guard abuse resulted in criminal indictments and civil lawsuits and few even resulted in verdicts against the guards and awards to injured inmates, impunity remained prevalent. Internal investigators conduct superficial investigations, if any and state District Attorneys lacked the resources and political will to bring charges against abusive officers, likewise with my "reviews" and appeal process that fail on deaf and indifferent ears.
The eighth to the U.S. constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. In attempting to define cruel and unusual punishment. Federal and state courts have generally analyzed two aspects of punishment, the method and the amount. As to the method of punishment, the Supreme court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even if the prisoner doesn't suffer serious injury. However, the actual infliction of physical pain or hardship is not necessary for finding of cruel and unusual punishment. Roe v Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78SC and 590, 23L ed. 2d 630 (1958). The court also opined that the eighth amendment must "draw-its meaning from, the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society'" The B.O.P, Administrators must have retarded their "maturity" progress since they're still subjecting me to the barbaric practice of total isolation that Charles Dickens reprimanded in 1842 after visiting the Philadelphia prison of rigid confinement and auburn system in New York state at Auburn and Sing Sing. These comparisons gave enough evidence for people to voice their concern that it was not natural to leave a person in solitary; that these conditions were so unnatural they bred insanity. These comparisons showed the PA - system had a higher incident of insanity than the New York system. Dickens admonished "He is the man buried alive - dead to everything but torturing anxieties and horrible despair.
The "unusual" provision, at least, is clear: providing that persons be subjected to arbitrary, humiliating, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of law. The negative mental health effects of isolation have long been well known, more than a century ago, the U.S. supreme court acknowledged the devastating effects of prolonged isolation even on '"normal" prisoners, a considerable number of prisoners fell after even a short confinement, into a semi - fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane: others still committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed and in most cases did not recover sufficiently mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.
In re Medley, 13405. 160, 168, (1980) (describing effects of solitary as practiced in the early days of the U.S.) Federal courts continue to recognize as established fact that isolated confinement inflicts serious psychological harm on many prisoners. Chambers v Florida, 309 U.S. 227 - 38 (1940). The court today remarks that "The length of confinement cannot be ignored / ante, at 686. 57L ed. 2d, At 532. Hutto v Finney (16. 4,51 the eighth amendments ban on inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment "Proscribe(s) more than physically barbarous punishments; Estelle v Gamble, 429 U.S. 9T. 102, 501. ed 251. 97 S ct 285, it prohibits penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the offence. Weens v U.S. 217 U.S. 349. 349. 367. 541. ed 793, 30 sc and 544. as well as those that transgress today's "Broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency" Estelle v Gamble, supra,, at 102. at 102, 501 ed 2d 251. 975 and 285. Paotine Jackson v Bishop, 4041 2d 5~! 1. 579 (at 1968) confinement
in a prison or in an isolation cell is a form of punishment subject to scrutiny under the eighth amendment standards. ...The court ordered that forbids the dept to sentence prisoners to more than 30 days in punitive isolation. The court did note its agreement with an expert witness who testified '"that punitive isolation as it exists at Cummins today serves no rehabilitative purpose and that it was counterproductive; at 277. The court went on to say that punitive isolation "makes bad men worse, it must be changed."

I bid,, I would like to ask this governing body, at what point does punishment become Sadism? Date:6-2-06
Thomas E SiIverstein. #406466
This is the third of 4 appeals:

And The Rejections

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal
North Central Regional Office

Part B - Response

Admin Remedy Number: 406466-R1

This is in response to your Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal dated April 1, 2006, in which you appeal your housing status. Specifically, you contend your indefinite status in solitary confinement is unfair. You request to be placed in General Population.
We have reviewed your appeal. Your confinement in the Special Housing Unit is deemed appropriate based on your repetitive history of institution violence and the need for extreme security conditions. Your housing conditions are not considered indefinite as your status is thoroughly reviewed every six months by institution and Regional Office staff, and annually by agency Executive Staff. Your extensive history of clear conduct is noted and is taken into consideration during your semi-annual reviews at the institution and annual review by executive staff.
Based on the above, your Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal is denied.

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20534. Your appeal must be received in the Office of General Counsel within 30 days from the date of this response.4-77-06
Regional Director,Michael K Nalley

REJECTION NOTICE - ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY


DATE: JUNE IS, 2006
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY: COORDINATOR CENTRAL OFFICE 'l TO : THOMAS EDWARD SILVERSTEIN, 14634-116

FLORENCE ADMAX USP UNIT: H QTR: Z13-030L
POC BOX 8500
FLORENCE, CO 61226

FOR THE REASONS LISTED BELOW, THIS CENTRAL OFFICE APPEAL
IS BEING REJECTED AND RETURNED TO YOU. YOU SHOULD INCLUDE A COPY
OF THIS NOTICE WITH ANY FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE REJECTION.

REMEDY ID 406466-A1 CENTRAL OFFICE APPEAL


DATE RECEIVED JUNE 13, 2006
SUBJECT 1 HOUSING ASSIGNMENT (EXCEPT SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS)
SUBJECT 2
INCIDENT RPT NO
REJECT REASON 1 YOUR APPEAL IS UNTIMELY. CENTRAL OFFICE APPEALS MUST BE RECEIVED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S RESPONSE. THIS TIME LIMIT INCLUDES MAIL TIME.

REJECT REASON 2 SEE REMARKS
REMARKS YOU NEED TO PROVIDE STAFF VERIFICATION ON BOP LETTERHEAD DOCUMENTING THAT THE UNTIMELY FILING OF THIS APPEAL WAS NOT YOUR FAULT.

to latest disappointment and more art