This part of the series will deal with communications and how Corrections Corporation of America is engaging in activities not authorized by contract which therefore violates their own Policies and Procedures and are also in fact, felony acts under state (Arizona) law and violations of federal law. I will also go into how contracts were entered into in violation of a court ruling by staff of Corrections Corporation of America at the Central Arizona Detention Center, and the Department of Corrections, State of Alaska.
To start this series, I will go into an action by Corrections Corporation of America employee John Kirsch. This individual has a computer tie in with the telecommunication computer that the prisoners of Central Arizona Detention Center use. Mr. Kirsch uses this computer tie in to place "Blocks" on phone numbers and generally cause chaos with the phone service. The Arizona Corporation commission, specifically Michael Brockman has stated the Corrections corporation of America employees are NOT AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO ANY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPUTER, PERIOD! So what is John Kirsch doing this for when this act is strictly forbidden?
Pursuant Corrections Corporation of America Policies and Procedures 16-100.5, which states:
A. Telephone Equipment
3. Telephones in the living areas are equipped with monitoring/recording devices, which can be activated upon request of the contracting agency.
In the contract between State of Alaska, Department of Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America there is no such request of authorization of such equipment to by activated.
Well folks, with this in mind, the staff at Central Arizona Detention Center are not only in violation of their own Policies and Procedures, but they are committing BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL OFFENSES BY THEIR ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO WIRE COMMUNICATIONS as Corrections Corporation of America has no legal authority to conduct wire interception, possess an interception device, or install a pen register device.
The first violation is in regards to connivance with a service provider to conduct wire interception, which violates A.R.S. 13-3006.
Divulging communication service information; classification; exception
A person is guilty of a class 6 felony who either:
1. Intentionally and without lawful authority obtains any knowledge of the contents of a wire or electronic communication by connivance with a communication service provider or its officer or employee.
On this count alone, there are actually two separate criminal counts as there has been two different service providers. The first felony count would be in relation to Security Telecomm and the second count would be in relation to Envision Comm.
The next violation under A.R.S. 13-3308 is the actual possession of an interception device by a private individual.
Possession of interception devices; classification
A person who has in his possession or control any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus designed or primarily useful for interception of wire, electronic or oral communications as defined in §13-3004, intending to unlawfully use of employ or allow the same to be so used or employed for interception, or having reason to know the same is intended to be so used, is guilty of a class 6 felony. All property possessed or controlled by any person in violation of this section is subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to chapter 39 of this title.
This possession of an interception device is further a federal violation of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2512. This statute is very long so I will be unable to list what is stated in this document, for which I am sorry, but I am running into a length of document restriction.
The next violation is under A.R.S. 3005 for the actual interception or wire communications without the consent of either the sender or receiver of such communications.
Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptions
A. Except as provided in this section and §13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either:
1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof.
Under this statute alone, Corrections Corporation of America employees at the Central Arizona Detention Center are committing four (4) different violations as follows:
Now, in relation to this activity of wire interception, Corrections Corporation of America employees at Central Arizona Detention Center have continuously tried to pull the wool over everyones eyes by making the following claims:
Now, we shall move to the employment of a pen register by Corrections Corporation of America at the Central Arizona Detention Center. This activity is a criminal act pursuant to U.S.C. 2511. Again, as in the earlier referral to a federal statute, this statute is very long and due to the restrictions of space, I will not quote it. Corrections corporation of America in relation to this statute can not claim a "Business Exemption: as in Part I of this series, Corrections Corporation of America is positively shown not to be conducting a legal business activity.
Now, we shall move to the employment of a pen register by Corrections corporation of America at the Central Arizona Detention Center. This activity is a criminal act pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3005.
Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptions
A. Except as provided in §13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or sues a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilitities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
This count, and in the count as for connivance with a phone service provider, is actually two counts as Security Telecomm and Envision Comm. Have both been involved in this activity with Corrections Corporation of America.
In relation to this charge, Corrections Corporation of America has again made several claims which have proven to be false and the reality of this action is plain outright disregard for the law on the part of Corrections Corporation of America as the following claims were given and all given by John Kirsch.
1. To Alaska Department of Corrections and court officials: This is being done as there were complaints from the local law enforcement agencies but in fact no such complaint was ever made.
2. To Alaska prisoners: This is being done because Alaska said they can do it, but yet, this would be a criminal act in Alaska pursuant to AS 12.37.00 as if a pen register is used, it can only be used by an application by a peace officer.
3. To Alaskan visitors: This is being done because of all the escapes.
4. To Alaska prisoners: This is being done as we can do whatever we want to do to you.
Well folks, I hope this has awakened you, but if not, try this, the use of a pen register as Corrections Corporation of America is doing is also a federal offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2511.
The latest in the series of claims Corrections Corporation of America in regards to the wire interception and the pen register utilization is that the prisoners themselves have given written permission for Corrections Corporation of America to engage in this activity, but yet, no prisoner has ever either verbally or in writing agreed to this activity.
Now, let us add some more information regarding remedies that are available.
In the State of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. 1-731 a remedy is available under Special actions and proceedings by individual persons.
Interception or disclosure of wire, oral or electronic communications Recovery of civil damages
Now, as for the federal remedies available, under 18 U.S.C. 2521 the following remedy is available by reporting the crimes as listed to a federal U.S. Attorney and demanding that action be implemented in accordance with the statute as follows:
Injunction against illegal interception
Whenever it shall appear that any person is engaged or is about to engage in any act which constitutes or will constitute a felony violation of this chapter, the Attorney General may initiate a civil action in a district court of the United States to enjoin such violation. The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination of such action, and may, at any time before final determination, enter such a restraining order or prohibition or take such other action, as is warranted to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons for whose protection the action is brought. A proceeding under this section is governed by the Federal rules of Civil Proceeding, except that, if an indictment has been returned against the respondent, discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Now, in relation to further phone violations, specifically in a case of fraud, which involves not only Corrections Corporation of America employees, but also Alaska Department of Corrections officials, I will give you the following information.
On 22 august 1996, Superior Court Judge Karen Hunt of the Alaska Superior court entered into a judgment that Alaskan prisoners housed by Corrections Corporation of America at the Central Arizona Detention Center have the same rights as those still held in the State of Alaska. This judgment was entered in relation to the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement (3AN-81-5274 Civil).
In this Final Settlement agreement, the following is given as one of the rights of Alaska prisoners on page 28.
V. Rights and Opportunities to be Provided Inmates
C. Telephone Communication
2. The Department may install coinless pay phones in each facility for local and long distance calls, which provide caller identification for each call. No charge shall be assessed to the caller or recipient for local calls.
On 23 August, 1996 Chief Operating Officer Charles Crandell of the Central Arizona Detention Center and Allen Cooper, Deputy Director of Institutions, Department of Corrections, State of Alaska, entered into a contract with Security Telecomm to charge $1.30 per local phone call in violation of the court ruling the day before. The act in the State of Arizona is a criminal offense pursuant to A.R.S. 13-2310, which is a class 2 felony.
I have given this statute on Part I of this series, so to save space I will not again recite it.
This action of fraud continued until February of 1997 when Cleary Court Monitor John Hagar was informed of the situation and finally took steps to bring Corrections Corporation of America and the Department of corrections into compliance with the ruling. As for Allen Coopers act of deliberately entering into this contract in violation of the ruling, not only is the charge of fraud in the State of Arizona apparent, but additional charges in the State of Alaska are apparent as this action is a punishable criminal act pursuant AS 11.56.850.
Official misconduct.
(a) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or deprive another of a benefit, the public servant:
(1) performs an act relating to the public servants office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of the public servants official functions, knowing that the act is unauthorized; or
(2) knowingly refrains from performing a duty, which is imposed upon the public servant by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servants office.
This action is also a criminal violation pursuant to AS 11.76.110.
Interference with constitutional rights.
(a) A person commits the crime of interference with constitutional rights if:
(1) the person intentionally injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another to deprive that person of a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution of laws of this state;
(2) the person intentionally injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another person because that person has exercised or enjoyed a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution or laws of this state; or
(3) under color of law, ordinance, or regulation of this state of a municipality of other political subdivision of this state, the person intentionally deprives another of a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution of laws of this state.
Well folks, once Security Telecomm left the scene, Allen Cooper again struck up the same fraud, but this time with John Kirsch of Corrections Corporation of America at Central Arizona Detention Center. As for the fraud involved with Security Telecomm, a Katlynn Perrin of Security Telecomm disclosed the previously stated information regarding the reason why prisoners from Alaska were still being charged $1.30 after 22 August 1996 and this individual was VERY MAD that Corrections Corporation of America and the Department of Corrections for the State of Alaska had put the company she worked for in such a position.
Well, this will do it for this part of the series and the next part of the series will involve criminal activities in regard to mail.
Catch you soon, at least if I don't get shot in my cell before hand with the claim of "He was trying to escape".