After a 2 month suspension I am back on Trulincs. I have decided to offer one of my kidneys to someone who needs a kidney. There are some strings attached, but I think you’ll like the strings. I can save the taxpayers millions of dollars at the same time I provide someone with a new leash on life, through a donated kidney.

I’ve made an offer to donate one of my kidneys. To whom? I’m not sure. At the present time I don’t even have the information necessary for determination of a good match. I just want to donate a kidney to a worthy individual, someone who needs a new lease on life. I kind of need the same for myself, at the present time.

The offer is included in a pleading, in my own lawsuit, styled Oscar Stilley v. US et al, 2:15-cv-00163 BSM/BD. Specifically I made it in my OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Objections). Part of my complaint is a request for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the US Department of Justice-Federal Bureau of Prisons (DOJ-FBOP) has a duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to property donated or offered to be donated to or for the benefit of the DOJ-FBOP. Congress passed a law, codified at 18 USC 4044, saying that the DOJ-FBOP is authorized to receive donations.

The question is whether the DOJ-FBOP has a duty of good faith and fair dealing, with respect to donations as authorized by said statute. I say that they do, and that the Court should enter declaratory judgment to that effect. The DOJ-FBOP denies any such duty. They claim that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this count of the complaint.

I’m sure that some will question why I want to do this. Why would anyone wish to exert effort to give something to someone not yet identified, by a procedure that will require a surgery, and that will reduce my capacity to filter toxins from my bloodstream? “What’s in it for me?” Whether or not stated, that question arises in nearly every substantial transaction in this life. And I do have reasons, which I deem good and sufficient to justify my decision. I’ll discuss those reasons later in this writing.

I’m not offering the kidney “no strings attached.” For one thing, I know what the DOJ-FBOP Program Statements say about kidney donations. Inmates can donate, but ONLY to family members, and ONLY if the inmate or his family pays all costs of “security” for the trip to the hospital.

The DOJ-FBOP obstructs kidney donations for the same reason it prohibits blood donations by inmates. All such donations tend to humanize inmates. The DOJ-FBOP wants the taxpayers to see the contents of their overcrowded prisons as inventory, as an undifferentiated mass of worthless humanity. Anything that cuts against the grain of that assumption is hated and opposed.

As stated in the pleading, an inmate friend of mine named Larry Bechel had a serious loss of renal function. The DOJ-FBOP knew but didn’t timely inform him. When they did inform him, they wouldn’t do anything to resolve the problem. Actually, they effectively prohibited a “kidney cleanse” by denying inmates access to the basics required for a kidney cleanse. Those basics include hydrangea root capsules, (about $10 per bottle of 100 in a health food store) apple juice with the “mother,” and a satisfactory diet without meat or dairy, for a period of 5 weeks (3 weeks for persons who haven’t had kidney stones or kidney disease in the past).

I’m not going to donate to a leaky bucket. I will not donate one of my kidneys while the DOJ-FBOP continues along a course that will necessarily result in the destruction of literally hundreds of kidneys belonging to federal inmates. I’m not asking for anything difficult. I’m not even asking the DOJ-FBOP to pay for anything – we can pay for the necessary resources from our share of the savings. I’m asking for the basic essentials plus reasonable incentives for inmates to get their health in the best condition reasonably possible under the circumstances.

I think it is fair to do a 50-50 split of the savings. The article attached to my pleading implies that the average cost of dialysis is $43,000 per year. We should also be able to save a lot of money on the cost of drugs necessary to control blood pressure, blood lipids, and diabetes. I think it is fair to split the proven, immediate, economic savings provided by inmates who improve their own health by self discipline coupled with educating themselves about their own personal health.

Of the 50% of cost savings to the inmates, I propose to spend half for things desired by the inmate population generally, as shown by inmate surveys. Why? Because if the whole prison compound benefits because a few inmates materially improve their own health, the word will spread. It will become common knowledge that saving the taxpayers’ money will give the INDIVIDUAL inmate money for commissary, phone time, Trulincs time, etc. That’s a serious motivator.

The taxpayers will get half the savings. Don’t let anyone tell you the taxpayers will be better off getting “more” of the savings, or – perish the thought – that inmates should “do the right thing” without any motivation whatsoever. Far and away the biggest prize is reduction of the $300,000 cost of medical care for a male, $400,000 for a female, for Americans, for the time period from age 65 through the remainder of their life. Inmates are often discharged from prison late in life, destitute and without valuable skills. They are however qualified for a host of government programs, ranging from disability to Social Security to welfare to Medicare and Medicaid. An inmate who saves $1,000 for the taxpayers while in prison may well save those same taxpayers $200,000 in costs of medical care age 65 through end of life.

When do you want to motivate an individual to better behavior? When they earn $30,000 per year, or when it is nearly impossible to get a job for the absurdly low wage of 40 cents per hour? Clearly it is far easier to motivate someone with money when they are destitute than it is when they are flush with cash.

Ditto for availability of choice food. In prison we just don’t get real pizza. Sure, the menu calls for “cheese pizza.” Most of the time you wouldn’t eat it if you got it free. Really good pizza to enjoy with a football game is a massive incentive to health improvement, when good pizza can’t be bought at any price. Same for watermelon. A feast of misshapen watermelon, which is much cheaper than aesthetically pleasing watermelons, is a huge motivator in federal prison. Watermelon is served in this prison perhaps once or twice a year, and otherwise can’t be bought at any price.

I know the next objection – that neither you nor I can possibly change DOJ-FBOP policy. They do what they want and nothing will change that reality. I can ask for rationality as much as I like but it won’t change anything.

Fair enough, but I plan to try. We have more than 3 months remaining in this year. This is a chance for my friends to contact the DOJ-FBOP and ask them to accommodate me, and thus to make another kidney available to someone who needs it. They’ve wrecked a lot of kidneys through negligence and bureaucratic inertia.

The deadline for the offer is NOT the end of 2016. It is the last day of March 2017, and I’ve offered to extend that time if I am shown good reason for an extension. I have my reasons.

I want to give the powers that be in Washington, DC, a chance to do the right thing on the basis of a generous offer. This will without question save millions of dollars for the taxpayers. The government claims that it wants to “right the ship” of the “Affordable Care Act,” AKA “Obamacare.” Costs are skyrocketing. What better way to change that paradigm than giving a discrete and insular segment of society (federal prisoners) serious incentives to improved health and reduced health care costs? The $43,000 annual savings for dialysis is just the tip of the iceberg. If the door is opened to donations by federal prisoners, you can be sure that I’m not the only one who will want to donate a kidney. More critically, the entire inmate population will be given a huge incentive to develop healthy practices AND PROVE IT.

This is a great opportunity for an experiment. Let’s see what happens when inmates get incentives to the improvement of their own health. Let’s advertise this opportunity to medical institutions and researchers. Let’s give them a chance to scientifically study the effects of motivation on behaviors and health outcomes. Such research is probably under way right now, even as we speak. It’s probably just a Google search away.

Why then do I say that I have 3 months left in this year while I say that the offer is open for the first 3 months of 2017? Because I know the DOJ-FBOP. I know how they think.

I’m doing the very thing that earned me a retaliatory transfer from Forrest City, the stripping of everyone named “Stilley” from my visitor’s list. I’m assisting other inmates with Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) tort claims against the DOJ-FBOP. Furthermore, I make no secret of it. I hold nothing back. If it is a good claim, I help with it. In short, I am making it perfectly clear that I am not intimidated by the retaliation that I have suffered.

I went to SHU (Special Housing Unit, or jail for the prison) for about 30 minutes on 9-13-16. I had written two requests to Food Service staff, the FIRST explaining that I would not falsely claim I had received training not actually provided, and offering to take the responsibilities of training Food Service workers and documenting the training. The SECOND explained that their practice of locking the toilet/washroom facilities from the workers was illegal, and offering to assist in correcting that deficiency.

What keeps them from transferring me again, as soon as I’m just about to hit a lick against the corruption and incompetence of the DOJ-FBOP? YOU!!! If you make it clear that you won’t stand for it, you can stop it.

You’re probably thinking that you are helpless in the face of that $30 billion per year juggernaut called the US Department of Justice. But that’s not quite true. You have lots of power if you understand it and use it right. You have to understand what they’re afraid of, and what matters to them.

I understand the threat of being shipped to bust up meritorious litigation. But there is a way around that too. If I can make sure the cases will be pursued EFFECTIVELY, they won’t want to send me to another prison. In that case, sending me to another prison is just “stringing fire.” They already know that I’ll be teaching inmates at the new prison how to do tort claim litigation, as soon as I hit the ground.

Therefore, the key to stop the retaliatory transfers is to make the DOJ-FBOP know, of a certainty, that the litigation at the “old” prison at which Oscar Stilley was held, will be good litigation that will survive dispositive motions and proceed to trial. DOJ-FBOP top brass really doesn’t want the dirty laundry aired out – which means they’ll generally settle when it becomes clear that the only alternative is a trial.

This CAN be done. Before I went to SHU on the 7-2-16 (for worshipping Yahweh on Sabbath day) I had drafted a proposal to create a panel of experts to provide expert opinions and testimony in my cases. If we have experts, we’re going to survive summary judgment nearly all the time. I was written a bogus “shot” (disciplinary incident report) for the allegedly prohibited religious meeting. The ONLY punishment they wanted or would accept was the loss of my Trulincs for 60 days. Not coincidentally, Trulincs documents “time out” in 60 days. This scam ensured that all my draft documents would “time out” so that I would lose them.

Also, we can create a panel of lawyers to do work for inmates when I’m unavailable. Lawyers do pro bono work for poor people all the time. I don’t want “free” work – I just want some work done on credit, with the understanding that some of us might not quite chin the bar. But if we get money out of the case, we’ll pay the juice.

This brings me back full circle, to the question about why I’m asking you to get me the right to donate a kidney within the next 6 months, when in fact I’ve put a 6 month deadline on my offer. Why would I do that?

If you’re reading this post, you probably know my peculiar habit. I’ve been on 8 hunger strikes. No, NO, NO, NO!!!!! This is not a threat to hunger strike!!!! Why should I have to hunger strike to get the right to perform a charitable act for someone who needs a kidney? Why should I have to hunger strike to save the taxpayers literally millions of dollars? Why then should I threaten a hunger strike?

That makes no sense and I won’t do it. I am not threatening a hunger strike and I don’t want my friends to tell anyone that I am.

However, I have no objection if you tell others that I’m clearing my calendar for the first quarter of next year, and working toward getting a “continuing” FOIA request approved, so that my medical records automatically and continuously get forwarded to a person of my choosing. I’m still not threatening a hunger strike. Nobody should be surprised if I don’t hunger strike, regardless of what happens in my attempt to donate a kidney, my litigation, my efforts to secure a panel of experts, or my efforts to secure a panel of lawyers willing to do enough work to ensure that inmate tort claims are lost because I get locked up in SHU, shipped, or otherwise made unavailable.

Fortunately, I kept a copy of the document I prepared for the purpose of securing a panel of experts. To review the document, see attached. I haven’t yet drafted a document to lay out a plan to secure a suitable panel of lawyers. I’ll be working on that.
Now consider why I believe I am BETTER OFF with one kidney than with two.

1) The remaining kidney will ramp up renal capacity to about 80% of what I had with 2 kidneys;
2) I will effectively have an “insurance policy” against loss of the remaining kidney;
3) I will have the means of protecting and preserving the remaining kidney through kidney cleanses and a better, more appropriate, more flexible and adaptive diet;
4) I will have the capability of monitoring my health, including renal health, through the same program that allows me to cut costs while simultaneously improving the renal health of other inmates;
5) I will have the framework to allow me to provide the American taxpayer with millions of dollars worth of benefits, at the same time that inmates get better food, educational resources, etc.

I value feedback. Even if you disagree, even if you disagree vehemently, I value your feedback. If you think I should focus on something else, say so. I understand that communicating with me is difficult. But you can communicate conveniently and effectively if you think outside the box. Email, or email my mother at A mother is almost always the last one to give up on a child. Therefore they’re almost always the one most certainly capable of getting a message to a son.

Opportunity is almost always available. The hard part is recognizing and capitalizing on the best opportunity.

Oscar Stilley