A BP9 requesting reasonable access to the courts was filed on December 12, 2011. I need this access both for existing civil litigation and for subsequent legal process relating to my criminal case.

On the same day the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied my petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc. They furthermore denied my motion to permit me to file a separate appeal from my own criminal conviction.

What this means is that, absent action by the US Supreme Court, I will never be permitted to file my own appeal of my conviction and sentence to 15 years in prison. My adoption of Springer’s brief, in the minds of the 10th Circuit judges, was sufficient basis for denying me the right to file my own appeal brief. The court declined to cite so much as a snippet of case law to back up this preposterous legal claim.

Read the blog post HERE…

The attachment to the BP9, explaining the reasons for my request, may be accessed from the blog post proper.

On Monday, December 12, 2011, I submitted a BP9 requesting that the Bureau of Prisons cease its invidious interference with my right to use my own property to access the courts. The BP9 was hand delivered to Ms. Jackson, for submission to Warden Outlaw, so she would record it in her log of requests for administrative relief. In the past I have submitted them through the mail system, only to have Outlaw wait 20 days (the limit for claiming administrative relief) and then deny the claim on the basis of untimeliness.

This is the second submission. The first one was submitted shortly after I arrived, in midsummer 2010. The BOP used the administrative process for its customary purpose, that being to delay, obfuscate, and to deny prisoners their legal rights. In theory the administrative process is meant to grant relief to meritorious claims, to deny non-meritorious claims, and to allow prisoners to litigate disputed matters. In practice, the entire process is a farce.

The first submission was denied by BOP National Headquarters for among other reasons the claim that I used the wrong form to request relief from the Warden. Neither the Warden nor the Regional Office made any such claim. However, they can “lay behind the log” and raise any petty defense at any time. The courts will not intercede in any meaningful way. The only remedy is to start over. Starting over is only an option where, as in this case, the wrong is a continuing wrong.

Unit Manager Jill Dube-Gilley reviewed my paperwork and wrote on it that I should avail myself of the prison law library. According to US Supreme Court case law, the availability of other legal resources is irrelevant. Prisons are not allowed to interfere with an inmate’s use of his own books, papers, or other resources for the prosecution of legal claims including but not limited to those related to his or her incarceration.

A copy of the attachment to the BP9 is attached HERE… BP9-121211

Later on December 12, 2011, I received word that my petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc had been denied without comment. My motion for permission to file a brief after the conclusion of the administrative process, and subsequent litigation, was also denied without comment. They use a standard format for such denials. The full text of the order is reproduced HERE… Order Rehear-Deny-121211

If you haven’t read the blog post about the petition for rehearing, I hope you will. The storyline of this case is the storyline of justice in US federal courts.

NO JUDGE has signed either the order of affirmance, or the order denying rehearing. Both were “Entered for the Court,” unsigned, and unpublished. Not one judge of the 10th Circuit is willing to attach his or her signature to this flagrant denial of due process – against Lindsey Springer as well as Oscar Stilley.

The order pleads ignorance of important facts. Under the rules this necessarily requires the scheduling of oral argument. But oral argument was denied.

The order of affirmance simply omits, for example, the defense of venue. The government admits that venue was substantially briefed, and de facto conceded that they had not a single fact to rely upon, to establish venue against me. Not one single judge in regular service on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals cared one whit about that fact. The only thing they cared about was keeping the conviction.

I showed that the only case (US v. Gallup) in the panel order, claiming that the conspiracy was a felony, was internally inconsistent. This issue necessarily had to be raised in a petition for rehearing, since neither party cited the case in their briefs. Even in light of the inconsistencies, Gallup clearly stood for the proposition that, at the very least, an 18 USC 371 conspiracy MIGHT be a misdemeanor. The panel will not address that issue, because they can’t. At least, they can’t without disturbing their predetermined decision to sustain the conviction, as well as the full 15 year sentence.

Face the facts. The rule of law in US federal courts has gone the way of the dodo bird. Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley are political prisoners just as much as any of the political prisoners that the US State Department loves to decry – when some other government is the guilty party. US America is “exceptional.” The rules don’t apply to them.

Please don’t misconstrue what I am about to say in the following paragraph. Mathematically speaking, the probability of success on the two remaining remedies available to me, petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court, and petition for writ of habeas corpus as constricted and constrained by 28 USC 2255, TAKEN TOGETHER, is less than one percent. WAY LESS, I understand my position, and hope you do too. Mark your calendars for May 17, 2023. That’s my projected release date.

Stay tuned. This battle is far from over.

Advertisements