First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter, Dec. 2019

WELCOME to the special introductory AdSeg issue of First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter that addresses Idaho Corrections concerns.

This not-for-profit publication has been brought to you by The Captive Perspective and is presented in alliance with the Book of Irving Project. All issues are available online at for your friends’ and loved ones’ reference. Be sure to have them check it out!

This publication aims to provide a reliable source of information for issues currently affecting our Idaho Department of Correction’s community. Because this is not a forum for personal problems, and because I’m paying for this mutha’, I reserve the right to censor that ass as needed. If that doesn’t hurt your feelings, ask others to link to the site or print and send a copy to wherever it’s appreciated. This effort is not of business, but of community.

Our Mission: To better develop the current state of Corrections.

The Idaho legislature shares our mission and welcomes your comments! Please feel free to send them your thoughts, attached to a copy of this publication.

Editor’s Note

Well, it looks like I’m the guy. That’s okay. I’ll do it. Because I have a genuine interest in re-uniting you with your loved ones, and seeing Corrections offer tools for success. But as I embark, please acknowledge my risk. Should you note I disappear or have my activities disrupted, know the universe favors both peaceful responses AND diligent inquiries: The best weapons are the questions that come with phone calls. Unleash them in every direction if and when the time comes.

I say this because after I was transferred from Idaho to Texas, I was approached by a group of inmates who informed me they refused a GEO Group staff request to silence my efforts. Because other inmates wouldn’t act against me, the employees did, and transferred my ass right back to Idaho. (Apparently GEO Group can’t hold a real man, or a decent grasp of the United States Constitution.)

Please also be reminded that I’m just trying to pay my debt to society over here. My efforts are nonpolitical in the prison context, and the only security threat I present to non-max facilities is that I’m trying to remodel our outdated system of betterment.

Thank you for understanding. Let’s get to work!

DECEMBER arrives with a presentation I have prepared for the Idaho Department of Correction’s Office of Professional Standards. My issue is with Grievance Policy 316.02.01.001, and how it allows employees to investigate themselves for misconduct.

I previously grieved this issue and requested the policy be adjusted responsibly. My grievance was denied, followed by the appeal, based on Warden Yordy’s interpretation of an issue outside of the grievance. The grievance itself was a result of Deputy Warden Tim Higgins and Contract Monitor Monte Hansen performing their own investigation of an allegation made against them, regarding an act of retaliation they were suspected of participating in. That they neglected to forward the complaint against them to the Special Investigations Unit, as required by IDOC Policy (Administrative Investigations), illustrates the concern that others may also be experiencing issues holding our government employees accountable for misconduct.

This grievance doesn’t stand alone. I am in possession of other claims alleging Constitutional infringements that too were investigated by the people at the center of the claim.

While IDOC’s current grievance system allows up to three reviews of a complaint to take place, the first responder is generally the staff member whose actions or decision resulted in the claim. The second responder verifies the first response, and in doing so, almost ALWAYS checks the reiteration box for why actions were taken against you. That no further inquiry is provided forces one to use their appeal by simply restating the initial grievance. And that’s regardless of the documentation or policy knowledge provided to the first responder. The appeal then proceeds to a third review, who doesn’t always make themselves known. While the appeal review generally tends to provide more thorough deliberation, there is nothing holding them from ruling on your claim if they too are involved in the accusation(s). This clearly benefits the escape of culpability.

Our non-lawyers and unfunded are commonly told their ability to express concern expires with the grievance process. I disagree with this when IDOC has a state-funded Office of Professional Standards. So I’ve written this office a letter requesting their audience. If they are unwilling to provide it, what choice do I have but to ask others, who have access to telephones and emails and USPS, to voice these concern on our behalf?

One outside voice may be able to help 7,000 beating hearts better contribute to a shared future by allowing us to focus on personal growth, instead of concerns with staff and taking defensive precautions. As you read my letter, please consider the potential impact you might make with five minutes of followup effort behind me:


Dear IDOC Office of Professional Standards:

I have concerns I would like you to address regarding employee misconduct and a dereliction of duties. I’ve presented documents supporting my claims to several administrative outlets and exhausted all grievance options, with no offer of acknowledgement or concern. The reason I don’t present these complaints now is because we’re told, as inmates, our options to voice concerns stop with the exhaustion of the grievance process. But what happens when employees accused of misconduct thwart the grievance process by investigating themselves?

If I am unable to present my concerns directly to you, I’ll understand. And I’ll request public assistance from taxpayers far and wide who are capable of bypassing the grievance system in the quest to hold government employees accountable for their actions.


(Redacted) Irving 82431


Rallying outside assistance might not seem like a feat in itself, but try it outside of the public eye sometime. My own mother said she was going to write a letter to the IDOC office, and that was nine months ago. I say this laughing, but I imagine finding Mother in a Ben Stiller/Happy Gilmore situation, requiring outside intervention, and what her wheelchair-ridden face might look like when I respond with: “I’m sorry, Mom. I haven’t gotten around to writing that letter yet. But at least there’s Arts and Crafts.”

This oddcast wouldn’t be possible without these sponsors:

Happy Days Tight Pants by Tinder: Jeans with a Winkler window. Swipe right, anybody?

And Hubbard’s Cupboard: IDOC’s favorite restaurant now serves gluten-free thetins. Use your membership card, interest free until January 674343921!

I’m diggin’ this format. Let’s continue.

Another concern that needs to be considered by the Office of Professional Standards can be found in the November letter I sent to IDOC, regarding what policies our Idaho inmates are expected to live by while being housed on the Mexican border. It’s important to know what conduct your captive oppressors expect of you: Not having the structure policy offers is a recipe for disaster. Because it also outlines the conduct expected from corrections officers. If neither side is given access to operating instructions, well, that’s not much of an operation, is it?

And not for nothin’, but are those guys down there even alive?! Has anyone checked on them lately? If they are alive, I’m willing to bet they’re still dealing with all of Warden Barry’s shenanigans, despite Director Tewalt and Chief Page both being presented with documentation showing he lied during an official investigation conducted by Steve Darilek of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards. Whaaaat!? Shots fired!:


Re: Jack Fraser’s 8-27-2019 Memo

Dear Mr. Fraser:

Your statement regarding the Contract Monitor operating by Texas Minimum Jail Standards, as opposed to IDOC Policy 318, alludes to the fact that you failed to provide an adequate review of my group complaints.

Additionally, it is suggested that you are still unaware of GEO’s contractual obligations, as outlined by IDOC Agreement Number(s) A18-001, A18-002. This agreement is publicly available, received its final signature 6-18-2018, and clearly states: “The Contractor shall resolve all disciplinary infractions, from minor infractions to serious violations, in accordance with IDOC SOP 318.02.01.001…”

If we are to believe IDOC understands the contract they are managing, the second paragraph of your memo is a clear indicator that IDOC is aware they haven’t been holding GEO Group to said contract’s standards. The extensive documentation I previously presented you with clearly illustrates an event took place five months after the contract was signed, and was neither processed by TMJS 283.1, 283.2 or IDOC SOP 318. IDOC’s combined lack of interest and diligence in reviewing these materials is of concern to everyone.

Unfortunately, additional documentation emphasizing the basic lack of performance abilities between the Contract Monitor and their supervisors will now seek a more deliberative audience. This will end our communication.

Thank you for your understanding.

(Redacted) Irving 82431

In entertainment news, someone got a new vagina from the 9th Circuit a few weeks ago. I wrote a poem about it. It’s called “Edmo’s New Vagina.” It appears to be making rounds this week. The poem that is. We’re still waiting on Consumer Reports for the vagina itself.

I’m gonna wrap this up by saying: Thank you for spending your poop break with First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter. Please come back for our next issue and be sure to visit the other materials made available at

Before I say goodbye with a song, I wish the holidays on all of you.

No Rain by Blind Melon

In friendship and incarceration,
(Redacted) Irving 82431



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 − eight =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.