Previous: First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter Coronavirus Alert 4.5.20
Welcome to the Special Corrector’s edition of First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter, where we instruct DOCs around the world — the good old Idaho way.
Brought to you by The Captive Perspective and presented in alliance with bookofirving82431.com.
…
A MESSAGE FROM THE DERECTOR
Hi all,
A lot of you are wondering, how do we do it? What’s the secret to getting away with all that we’ve done? In response to your fan mail, and I do get a lot, I figured I’d hijack our favorite sage’s platform and do a little oracling of my own.
But because I don’t have much time to cook something up (read: I bought a new jet ski for those sick corona waves), I’m just gonna serve you all a little taste of how-we-do.
While everything here will accommodate the personal agenda, I can’t stress this enough: The people you’re responsible for have all offended against one or more members of the community. That makes it okay for you to offend against thousands of theirs with every negligent step that you take.
So without further ado — our IDOC How-To Special.
Catch you on the flip!
— J Dizzle
…
HOW TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT WITH A DRY-ERASE BOARD
IDOC’s disciplinary policy was said to have changed in 2018, to limit offender effects in our much-touted “segregation experience,” but policy text is the only thing different. Take it from our inmates at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution:
“After doing the maximum fifteen days in the hole, the only thing that changed was my status on a dry-erase board,” says an inmate who recently circulated through one of IMSI’s segregation units. By sanctioning offenders with extended restrictions on property, commissary and phone during disciplinary, “[t]hey get around saying our deprivation is limited. I didn’t get more rec time, I didn’t get any dayroom — literally nothing changed in my daily life, nothing changed in my cell.”
Sure, we installed day room cages in February “to provide offenders more out-of-cell time.” But guess what? — just ’cause they’re there doesn’t mean they need used. Mostly they serve to point at on tours, like the handcuffs we leave hanging from unused desks all year round.
WORRIED ABOUT PAPER TRAILS? TRY THIS TIP
Once a year, release a memo like Warden Yordy did in our January edition. By “saying” more rec time will soon be offered to all, you can continue limiting your offenders to only one hour per day. (A total of 23 hours cell-time, daily, should be what you strive for to keep them all nuts.) The same memo can be pointed to anytime someone asks about programs being “rolled-out.”
DON’T waste paper with separate memos.
DO check boxes suggesting ALL Ad-Seg offenders actively program.
…
HOW TO RUIN A PERFECTLY GOOD BALLFIELD
Tired of watching offenders run laps and play ball? Try splitting the ballfield into four fenced sections, under the guise of offering inmates four-times the rec.
Make sure to section them all off unevenly — it’s even okay to make one quarter a dog run! Whatever you do, don’t complete the fence. That way, eight months later, while continuing to tell them they’ll get more time outside, you can continue to limit their sunshine while robbing 3/4 of their faculties.
We recommend the IMSI model: Be sure to cordon off the phones so no one can use them. Same with the bathrooms — who needs those anyways? You’ll have to leave those scoundrels a pull-up bar, and maybe a wall to bounce a ball off of, but the goal is to keep the violence-prone crammed together without the privilege of motion — this makes it easier for diabetes to catch all of them at once.
A few years in and they’ll start picking-off each other. That’s what we call a soup-in-the-box!
…
HOW TO CHARGE OFFENDERS DOUBLE AND TRIPLE WHEN DEPLOYING OLEORESIN CAPSICUM
If it’s not enough to spray the shit out of those bastards, make their pocketbook suffer too! Reuse your Sabre Red MK9 Foggers several times each, while charging each offender $41.99 a pop.
In situations where the spray isn’t needed, but you can’t resist a little letting-them-know, give ’em a kiss, replace the pin, and let your use-of-force/disciplinary report reflect the whole canister spent. When given a receipt for the bill — redacted, of course — they’ll have no way to prove that we’ve made it a game! (Redacting cannister orders is essential to insure no audit is capable of comparing the number of canisters ordered to the numbers that were used or remain.)
And even if they prove it, it’s important to note: None of those cocksuckers are capable of being loved as much as Daddy’s new boat.
That’s what makes it okay!
…
HOW TO RESPOND TO OFFENDERS WHO WISH TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE
Here’s a real life example from the best in the biz, Tim Higgins. After denying several dozen inmates their Federal Disciplinary Due Process Procedures at an IDOC contract facility in Eagle Pass, Texas, he was able skate past the fact by pretending he knew where he was and what he does for work.
When intercepting communications addressed to his boss, Pat Donaldson (6-8-19), Timmy crossed out Pat’s name and then wrote in his own before sending contradictory answers back to the pesky offender who was asking him questions.
Here’s the master in action:
Offender: Please describe your understanding of IDOC Agreement Number A18-002, section 5.5
Higgins: Our understanding of Section 5.5 is what is written in the contract.
The level of comfort he operates with while attaching this page from the contract…
“The Contractor shall resolve all disciplinary infractions, from minor to serious, in accordance with IDOC SOP 318.02.01.001 (Disciplinary Procedures: Inmate…Once all appeal processes are exhausted at the Facility, Inmates may submit an appeal to the IDOC Contract Monitor or designee.”
…despite Jack Fraser’s complete contradiction in an 8-27-2019 memo…
“You, along with several inmates, were charged with disciplinary infractions under the Texas Commission on Jail Standards [not IDOC policy 318].”
… is the work of a real craftsman.
But that’s not all, folks — after investigating himself for using the classification system to retaliate on an inmate, he gave us another beauty.
Inmate: Are you aware [Policy 316] does [actually] allow classification resulting from disciplinary to be grieved?
Higgins [managed to cram this addition above an already-long rant, post script]: It should be noted that this was not signed by you so it should be rejected, we will answer it anyway…
The rest of what was said, we don’t even know. Ol’ Timmy has a habit of making no sense.
Holy smokes, we’re having so much fun we’re gonna do one more for free. It’s another classic intercept, addressed to Monte Hansen (6-8-19). In breaking form, Timmy opts not to cross Monte’s name out before signing off as himself.
Inmate: Did you report my retaliation grievance to [Special Investigations Unit] before you answered it? Grievance II 190000285.
Higgins: What our staff discuss to our investigators is not something we will disclose to our inmate population.
For those of you paying attention, if ever caught up in the investigative cross hairs of your underlings, be sure to discuss “to” them, not “with” them.
Full disclosure: He didn’t report himself as required by Administrative Investigations policy 150.01.01.006.
It’s rumored he later said this about the situation: “…And if it hadn’t been for those pesky investigators answering the same question with a modicum of integrity, I would’ve gotten away with it, too!”
Fortunately for Timmy, no one really cared. Because, well — fuck inmates, right?
…
Join us for shittin’ on ’em next time, when we learn how to structure more paragraphs together for another Special Corrector’s edition of First Amend This!
…