It’s good that people are willing to help on legal matters. So people don’t compete on their legal knowledge, give assignments to them on different legal issues that they may specialize in, so they could post some of that info here so it is handy and quick to look up.
Suggestions for content: How to go through the entire ICE process. Explain that DOC staff have work rule , a code of conduct and can be punished for breaking them. There are cell search rules which must be followed (you won’t find it on West Law or in the library because most 306 codes are security issues). When all else fails cc a letter to DOC Secretary Kevin Carr about issues that aren’t being resolved in the prison you’re at. (Every time I’ve done this Carr sent a copy of my letter to the warden and the warden then found time to respond.)
* Have IWOC give updates on news affecting old law and T-i-s prisoners * Provide Info on how to get law books, and which ones to get * How to file a 974.06 * Case law on “sufficient reason” to file a subsequent 974.06 *Explain a new factor in layman terms *Explain what constitutes as newly discovered evidence * Breakdown the 1983 process * Explain the difference between a Tort and 1983 and which route works for what matters * Old parole law information * Explain Executive Directive 31 * Explain who qualifies for Compassionate Release and Extraordinary Circumstances
IWOC these are just suggestions. Having answers to these issues may be helpful. I say that because it seems guys get on here and rant about issues not knowing there are solutions. We may be able to network with our knowledge, not compete. If you think this is okay I can provide some info in these areas. It would be good to post their work rules so people know how the DOC staff are supposed to treat them and conduct themselves. If you can find executive directive 43 and put it on here it would help guys. Also executive directive 31 for guys under old law. I have both. I have a few resources mentioned above if you think it is a good idea. I’m an old law prisoner. I have a lot of data from the parole commission on how parole is “supposed” to work. If you’d like I’d just go down the list above and send something on it weekly.
THIS IS A LETTER/REQUEST THAT I PLAN ON SENDING, AND I HOPE THE MEN HERE WHO WILL DO THE SAME. HUNDREDS OF VOICES ARE HARD TO IGNORE!
To: Joy Tassler, CMSD
From: Toby Hill #404440
Re: Video Visitation
About a month ago you were doing a “round”, and I spoke with you briefly to say that I would send you a request, along with my reason for asking.
The request this: Please consider changing the rules for our “video visit” list to allow for telecalls with people who are not on our “visit the facility” list. Let me explain.
Our visitor list may name up to 12 adults who are able to travel to see us. Naturally, we choose people who have the ability to travel, and do not include those who cannot make the trip due to medical, physical, or age limitations.
However, video visits via Zoom are not like in-person visits. They are, in fact, identical to phone calls from the standpoint of security. That is, the Zoom visits are monitored, and obviously there is no way the person on the other end can bring anything into the facility.
Therefore, I believe we should be able to have video visits with anyone who can also participate in a phone call with us – whether or not they are one of the 12 adults on our “visit the facility” list.
The reason this is important to me is because I have a niece, (name of person), who is no longer on my approved visiting list because she cannot travel due to her medical conditions. She stays at home with her granny (my mother) and is the one who sets up the video visits for my mother. However, because of the standards we are being held to, I cannot be on the Zoom call with my beloved niece even though she sits in the same room as my mom during the video visits.
This goes against the Department’s Vision Statement which states in part: “Every person -Every Family – Every Community matters.” Included in the Mission Statement is the intention to “Provide opportunities for positive change and success.”
Clearly, one way to work toward “positive change and success” is being able to video-visit with loved ones. We are living in extraordinary times, and I believe we (PIOC) should not be held to standard visiting rules.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration to this matter, and I look forward to your response.
Whenever anyone figures out how to successfully file a complaint on the IC Solutions services about all the issues we are having problems with (rejecting our people’s call when they try accepting them, or cutting out to dead air during our calls, etc.) maybe someone can also mention HOW many times that operator recording cuts in disrupting our calls 2-3 times within 15 minutes we are allowed!! Each time that recording cuts in it takes a minute of our talking time with our loved ones. Once maybe I can understand, but it don’t take 2 to 3 more times to tell us the call maybe monitored after the first time!! And it does the same thing during ordering canteen when you are trying to hear the operator recording repeating your order, the all calls maybe monitored recording cuts in 2-3 times making so ya can’t hear the other recording of your canteen order. Crazy.. I tried filing a I.C.E on both, but can’t get even to first step cause they send it back stating it is not a D.O.C issue, it is the vendor’s issue. How do we complain to vendors who won’t answer or respond to even people on the outside???
Frustrated & Confused
Few people seem to know that the new policy on quarantine is that if you are out on medical trip for 24 hours or less and keep your mask on you won’t be quarantined. That is per the transport officers and that was the case when I went to Fond du lac a couple weeks ago.
They posted a memo when the Health Services Manager implemented a policy to quarantine folks if they left for medical trips so I’ve been wondering why they didn’t post the new policy. When I recalled the comments a nurse made about how many people were refusing medical treatment if they had take trips out of concern they’d they’d be quarantined or exposed to covid I wondered if the HSU manager was staying tight lipped so that people would continue refusing medical treatment? I obviously can’t get in her mind and she’s not likely to be truthful about it ~ I’ve never known her to be neither honest nor forthcoming. But I might be able to present these facts and others I can ascertain about these events and let people draw their own conclusions.
And the absurd hits keep a comin’ so I’ve got some ICE tales that make Jayson’s pale in comparison, i.e., I learned about an incident report from the ICE more than a month after it had been written. I obtained a copy and discovered the CO lied. He accuses me of using my medical ice to “keep things cool” I only keep ice in the container and his report states that ice was all that was in the container. So there was nothing to keep cool except for more ice. While I filed the ICI a couple days after I received a copy, the ICE rejected it because it was over 14 days since the report was written. Despite the fact that I would have had to have been psychic to know that or that the CO had lied. The warden upheld the appeal. He agreed apparently that I was at fault for not being psychic.
“People get used to anything. The less you think about your oppression, the more your tolerance for it grows. After a while, people just think oppression is the normal state of things. But to become free, you have to be acutely aware of being a slave.” -Assata Shakur
It has been rumored that some people here at FLCI have been writing the rec. Sergeant, suggesting that we keep rec. at one time a day, after this Covid-19 comes under control. Not only would I suggest that this is a vital mistake and a very selfish request; but I wonder if people really realize that something like this, if it should ever occur, will never be undone. Suppose you are one of those who made this request. Ask yourself just how much time will you have to do inside of this institution, before you move on? Then think about those who will still be here. Or, imagine a time when you begin a work assignment, school, or a program that prohibits your ability to attend rec. most of the time?
I am what you would call a “jailhouse lawyer” and have been litigating since 2012. I have won numerous lawsuits, have gotten motions for appointment of counsel granted in 83% of the cases I have litigated for others. I have also gotten numerous inmates back into court and some released from prison in criminal cases.
Reading the past blasts about Fox Lake, others are complaining about food, visitation, and the ICRS generally.. Although the ICRS may be created for the inmate to think he is being heard, its objectives are purely for exhaustion… In practice the DOC uses this system to deflect litigation. For instance if you have a meritorious issue regarding staff or conditions of confinement they will probably tell you that you need to contact someone else or act like the issue is being taken care of. The purpose of this response is to allow an affirmative defense in court for either failure to exhaust or a statement that you simply did not give them enough time to take care of the issue. One thing you need to understand is that the staff are constantly getting sued, have a internal attorney to advise them on legal issues, and have been specifically trained to deflect litigation and liability. Moreover, one thing inmates need to realize is that the ICRS employees may be terminated from their job for affirming complaints. The ICE affirmed the complaint stating that upon entering the cell hall he saw a “visible haze.” Upon litigation the ICE “no longer worked for the DOC.”
As the ICRS is used the way it is, the best thing to do is to press the liability issue. Whenever I file a complaint I state that what they did is either “negligence in the performance of a ministerial duty,” “deliberate indifference,” “a violation of free speech,” and so on. For instance if the DOC rules and policy state that a staff member must or shall do something and they don’t, it is “negligence in the performance of a ministerial duty.” As a general rule “public officers are immune from liability for damages resulting from negligence or unintentional fault in the performance of discretionary functions.” Immunity does not apply if the act or omission is predicated on a ministerial duty. Which in summation means that if their rules tell them explicitly to do something and they do not, which results in an actual injury to you, there most likely is a claim.
I read a complaint about an improper co-pay. Regarding medical co-pay issues, you need to contact or complain to Stacy Polk p, Financial Program Supervisor.