In this section, I will address the issue of whether the Western Interstate Corrections compact applies to those being held by corrections Corporation of America and the reality of the plight of those prisoners who Corrections Corporation of America holds. I hope you are ready for this as what is going on goes way beyond shocking, as the reality of the behavior of those who are supposed to "Uphold law and Order" is appalling. I will only address the issue in regard to Alaskan prisoners, as this is where I have first hand knowledge of the situation.
On 30 November 1994, the Alaska Department of Corrections Commissioner Frank Prewitt entered into a contract with Corrections Corporation of America to house approximately 206 Alaskan State prisoners at the facility known as Central Arizona Detention Center in Florence, Arizona. This contract WAS NOT between two state governments, but between a state agency and a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
With this fact now established,
the Western Interstate Corrections Compact DOES NOT APPLY as this
agreement is only between state government entities and this is
clear by the context as follows:
ARTICLE
III
(a) Each party state may make one or more contracts with any one
or more of the other party states for the confinement of inmates
on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated within receiving
states.
It is further to be noted the Alaska Department of corrections
Commissioners Frank Prewitt and Margaret Pugh have both testified
to the Alaska Superior Court, specifically to Superior Court Judge
Karen Hunt that the Western Interstate Corrections Compact does
not apply to ANY PRISONER TRANSFERRED TO THE CENTRAL ARIZONA
DETENTION CENTER FACILITY and this testimony came in conjunction
with the legal rights of Alaskan prisoners in relation to the
Cleary Final Settlement Agreement (3AN-81-5274 Civil).
Now, Alaska Department of
Corrections officials claim that the transfer of Alaskan prisoners
to Corrections Corporation of America in Florence, Arizona is
legal by AS 33.30.031, which states:
Contracts for confinement and care of prisoners.
(a) The commissioner shall determine the availability of state correctional facilities suitable for the detention and confinement of persons held under authority of state law or under agreement entered into under (e) of this section. If the commissioner determines that suitable state correctional facilities are not available, the commissioner may enter into an agreement with public or agencies to provide necessary facilities. Correctional facilities provided through agreement with a public agency for the detention and confinement of persons held under authority of state law may be in this state or in another state. Correctional facilities provided through agreement with a private agency must be located in this state unless the commissioner finds in writing that :(1) there is no other reasonable alternative for detention in the state; and
(2) the agreement is necessary because of health or security considerations involving a particular prisoner or class or prisoners, or because an emergency of prisoner overcrowding is imminent. The commissioner may not enter into an agreement with an agency unable to provide a degree of custody, care, and discipline similar to that required by the laws of this state.
In the case of those prisoners sent from Alaska to Central Arizona
Detention Center, this statute generates many problems.
1. Corrections Corporation of America by Arizona law is not legally able to conduct any type of disciplinary action.
2. The facility is private and is not located in the State of Alaska as required under this law.
3. The issue of overcrowding was not a new issue but one that was years old and the Department of Corrections; State of Alaska had been trying to circumvent for many years.
In fact, the Department of Corrections in the State of Alaska
had even declared in writing that the rights of those prisoners
that had been sent to Arizona were in fact suspended (See Attached
letter to an Alaskan inmate housed at CCA-CADC dated March 20,
1995 and signed by J. Christian Lyou, Grievance & Compliance
Administrator for the Alaska Department of Corrections) which
clearly shows that the contract between the Department of Corrections,
State of Alaska and Corrections Corporation of America was not
legal in regard to this law. Now add the information from Part
I of this series about the contract having to be approved by the
Attorney General of the State of Arizona and was not, and the
fact that Corrections Corporation of America is not authorized
to conduct the type of business they are engaged in, it is very
clear that the reliance on this law is only done with the intent
to deceive the public and those prisoners that it effects.
Now add the following information to further show that this contract is not legal. On all flight manifests, those prisoners being transferred were NOT SHOWN AS PEOPLE, BUT AS "COMMODITY: PERISHABLE". This really shatters any claim that the transfer was legal or any claim that the contract was legal, which then brings up some very interesting criminal violations of the law on the part of the Department of Corrections, State of Alaska, and Corrections Corporation of America.
I will first start by addressing
the state law violations that are apparent. The first cite
I will give will deal with those held by Corrections Corporation
of America who is acting without any legal authority to hold anyone
which constitutes a violation of the law pursuant to A.R.S.
13-1303.
Unlawful imprisonment; classification
A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person.
This statute is very evident
under the definitions of A.R.S. 13-1301.
Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
2. "Restrain" means to restrict a persons movements without consent, WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY, and in a manner which interferes substantially with such persons liberty, by either moving such person from one place to another or by confining such person.
Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by:
(a) Physical force, intimidation or deception.
Well my friends, this action is a class 6 felony and under the
"Racketeering" definitions from Part I, there is now
the new addition under A.R.S. 13-2301 D. 4.
(c) Kidnapping
As for the actual transfer
of prisoners by the Department of Corrections, State of Alaska,
this action was done in total disregard of law, they have entered
into federal offenses, and like that of Corrections Corporation
of America, the act is in reality a criminal violation of kidnapping
as it was done without legal authority and the act crossed not
only state lines, but also international boundaries which does
make is a punishable offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1203.
Kidnapping
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor child by the parent thereof, when-
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of title 49;
There is much more to this statute, but the areas that are shown
in the above to remember are:
(a) (1). Yes, Corrections Corporation of America is holding ALL ALASKAN PRISONERS FOR A REWARD and the contract between Corrections Corporation of America and the Department of Corrections, State of Alaska is proof of this.
Now we can continue further into this statute which the following areas apply.
(b) With respect to subsection (a) (1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall be unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term or years or for life.
(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
I hope you are shocked by the contents of what has just been disclosed
to you in this document. We now have Corrections Corporation
of America committing a criminal offense of unlawful imprisonment
in regard to Alaskans being held at the Central Arizona Detention
Center and we have Corrections Corporation of America and officials
of the Department of Corrections, State of Alaska involved in
a federal violation of kidnapping as shown through the quotes
of law I have given.
I do hope someone out there will give those who are being held by Corrections Corporation of America some help as the attempts the prisoners themselves have made through the courts are constantly being sidetracked and each court being played against the other by attorneys for Corrections Corporation of America and the Attorney Generals Office, State of Alaska. These entities have continuously told one court that another court had jurisdiction in this matter but when the issue goes to the court just claimed, these same entities them claim the other court has jurisdiction or that there is no remedy available to the prisoner.
To date, there have been Writs of Habeas Corpus in the following courts:
Arizona Superior Court
Arizona Supreme Court
U.S. Federal District Court: Arizona
Alaska Superior Court
Alaska Court of Appeals
Alaska Supreme Court
U.S. Federal District Court: Alaska