From: Paul Bradford, inmate #268—348 Orient Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 511, Columbus, Ohio 43216

Subject: Request for assistance

Re: Due process concerns relating to R.T.B. appeal

Dear Ms. P.,

Hello, My name is Paul Bradford, inmate *268-348. I am 56 years old and am incarcerated in the Orient Correctional Institution. I am writing to you for assistance in a matter which I believe falls in line with the concerns of your office with the C.I.I.C. I have a problem with the Belmont Correctional Institution in St. Clairsville, Ohio. It has to do with the lack of due process in appealing their R.I.B. ruling in a case against me.

I received a disciplinary transfer from Belmont to Orient C.I. on July 2, 1996, as the result of an R.I.B. disposition against me on April 24, 1996. The charge was a violation of Administrative Regulation 5120—9 Series Rule 30 (Establishing or Attempting to Establish a Relationship with an Employee) with one of my immediate supervisors, a female employee I had worked in the Belmont Commissary for about seven months for three Corrections employees, Mrs. L. (Manager), Mr. G., and Mrs. V.. Mrs. L. and Mr. G. had written incident reports to the Institution’s State Investigator, Mr. W. He wrote a misconduct report against me after he had me locked in SC (hole) for investigation. Never once did he talk with me or investigate me in an interview or questioning.

After I wrote to the Deputy Warden Special Services, Mr. S., he informed me that I was being held for investigation and that I would be given a misconduct report. I had been placed in the hole on 4/15/96 and the misconduct report was read to me on 4/18/96. I appeared at the R.I.B. on 4/24/96 and was found guilty of the Rule 30 charge. I had requested that the female employee in question appear for my hearing in my defense against this charge. She did appear and did testify that she did not share the opinion of her co-workers that I had tried to Establisi a Relationship with her. She stated that I had been an excellent worker and that I was continually trying to out—do myself at the job. She said that I had become over-protective of her, but that she had never had any problems with me whatsoever.

I had testified in my own behalf that I had offered to leave my work assignment at the commissary if I had become a problem or did not fit in the program there. But Mrs. V. had told me not to do this because I was doing just fine, but that I should just "chill-out" a bit and not get upset when inmates were disrespectful in her presence. The R.I.B. asked if this were true, and she said it was exactly so. This is on the electronically recorded tape of the hearing, case *96—4-89, tape *118.

I wanted to appeal the finding of guilty against me, and was given an appeal form. I submitted a two page appeal, answering each of the issues brought up against me in the misconduct report by the State Investigator. I submitted this to the Managing Officer’s designee, the Administrative Assistant, Ms. J. on May 1st, seven days after my hearing. That same evening, my kite with the enclosed two-page appeal was returned to me,unopened. I sent it back to Ms. J. the next morning, May 2nd. The full disposition of the R.I.B. finding me guilty of the Rule 30 violation (Attempting) I was sentenced to 15 days DC (hole), recommended Security Review, and an institutional transfer. On May the 8th, 1 was released back into population at 6:00 PM and was placedback in the SC - Investigation (hole) again the next morning at 9:OO AM on May 9th. I remained there until I was transferred to Orient on July 2nd, 1996.

I still hadn’t heard from my appeal at that time, but when I was brought back to the hole, I was not given the opportunity to secure my R.I.B. papers until nearly a week later when papers were taken from my personal property by the Recieving and Discharge Officer, C/O J. For the first two days back in the hole, I was not given my medications. I panicked and thought possibly the people running Belmont might be trying to kill me by withholding my medication I have Angina, Emphysema, High Blood Pressure, and Diabetes. After I wrote to the Warden, Mr. T., and the Adm. Asst., Ms. J., the medications resumed and I wrote to them immediately and retracted my claim about my medications being withheld.

The politics of the entire situation lay in the fact that the lady, Mrs. V., is the wife of the Belmont Correctional Institution Special React Team Commander (SRT) and was naturally very close to the Deputy Warden of Operations (Mr. B., who is now the Warden at Be. C.I.). I spent a total of 78 days in the hole over this write up, lost my Minimum II Custody, and was transferred disciplinarily without the promised appeal interview by Ms. J. After about 60 days of this being punished in the hole, I wrote to the Institution Inspector and told him that I wanted to file Rule 46a and 46e charges against two of the commissary workers who had written the incident reports against me. This is the A.R. 5120-9 Series for Employee Standards of Conduct; Inmate Related Offenses. After nearly two weeks, he came to the hole to interview me and I let him read my written depositions against Mrs. L. and Mr. G. After reading these papers, he asked me how I could prove my statements and I told him that I would take a lie-dector test, submit to sodium pentathol, or submit to total-recall hypnosis, if they wanted. He then said that he didn’t see how this would help my case. I told him I didn’t care if it helped my case because I had already been punished so far out of proportion for not having done anything wrong in the first place. One of the statements in my deposition against Mrs. L. was about a conversation she had held with him about an inmate grievance. She said that he had told her that if an employee admitted doing what was stated in the grievance, he would have to do something about it, but that if the employee were to deny it, he would take the word of the employee against that of an inmate.

I also asked him why my appeal was being ignored and he said he w check into it for me. Two days later, Mr. B., Deputy Warden of...

I was willing to let go of this bad experience and try to go on without causing waves. I had talked with several authorities here who knew me from my earlier 2-½ years at this institution about continuing my appeal on the Be. C.I. misconduct conviction and was told generally that it would be like "peeing into the wind." So I was going to let it go, because I was in the midst of people who thought better of me. Then the tragedy happened at Lima where a female employee was murdered and reactive security measures were instituted and I was brought up to talk with the Deputy Warden of Operations here, Mr. F. After our talk, he allowed that I didn’t need to be transferred from this institution. But I had been beina trained for a work assignment at our Frazier Health Center as a Wheelchair Repairman. The Major, Mr. M., said no to my being assigned there because there were many female employees working in that building.

Commissary employees yet. He introduced himself and said that they knew there had been no relationship between Mrs. V. and myself but that they could not allow me to go around "intimidating" inmates about their behavior around Mr. V. I told him that I was not a problem-type inmate and that I had had enough of being in the hole for not having done anything wrong. I was not found guilty of having "intimidated inmates." I was found guilty of "Attempting" to Establish a Relationship with an Employee, Mrs. V. He said they were waiting for bed space to get me transferred out of there to another institution. He said the only thing open would be Orient (as though it were an undesirable choice) and I told him that was where I had initially transferred from the previous October. He asked if I got along well there and I said yes. He said he’d see what he could do for me. The following Tuesday (July 2, 1996) I was transferred back to Orient.

There were other officials here who knew me better than the notion that I was dangerous to females because of their proximity with me in the time period between May of 1993 thru October of 1995.

On the strength of this conviction, these people pursued the matter to call Mr.B.--who is now the Warden at Belmont -and ask for his opinion for clarification as to whether to hire me or not. Mr. B. told them that I had been "Stalking" several females while I was at Be. C.I. and that I should have been sent to a close institution. If this were true, I would have been written up and put in the hole from the first incident of "Stalking" any females. So I was turned down for the job assignment. The worst part of all this is that I am labeled now as a "Stalker" as well as convicted murderer. I do realize that there is no such consideration as "defamation of character" concerns for convicted felons, but this is not true of. me. I want to fight this, even if I am up against a "stacked-deck."

On the day before I left Be. C.I. on transfer, one of the R.I.B. members told me that he came very close to finding me not guilty of the Rule 30 violation because of the irregularities he found in the miscounduct report and testimony by Mrs. V. He is a "grey shirt" Correction Officer, Mr. T., I believe.

In all the time I have been incarcerated, I have never filed a complaint. I had always hoped that if I ever had a problem that someone in authority would take me seriously. I know that as a rule of thumb authorities in corrections can make allegations and assessments like this with impunity, but I still think there should be an inherent right as a U.S. citizen--even as a convicted felon--to due process considerations even as limited as those in a correctional setting for inmates. More and more, those rights are being swept away by arbitrary and capricious actions such as those posed in the Warden at Be. C.I., Mr. B., about my having "stalked" several women. If this were true, then misconduct reports should have been written so that I could have at least had the opportunity to protect myself against such allegations. Otherwise, this leaves me in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. How can I or anyone defend against such allegations of "Stalker" and being "dangerous to women" when the statements are in general rather than in specifics put forth in a misconduct report. And when that is done, and I am found guilty for politically expedient concerns, I should at least have the opportunity for appeal.

I hope this letter isn’t too confusing, as there is so much information that I want to provide in this writing without turning this letter into a book. I have my paperwork from Belmont and would be happy to send you copies to verify my statements in this letter if you are interested in helping me. I don’t want to cause problems through recriminations and through appeals from the will and judgment of corrections authorities, but it bothers me deeply to have a "jacket" (labeling) on me for being deviant with females. My record will show that I have no convictions for sex or violence against any women ever. My violence has always been against men, and I have been locked up over 22 years for those offenses, with another eight years to go before I see a parole board again. My last violence was over twenty years ago. I have documentation from prison authorities that I have been non-problematic and exemplary behaviored throughout my incarceration. Now, all of a sudden, as a result of reactive politics, I have become a "monster" again, but now against women. That is wrong, and I want my appeal to be heard in a fair and impartial setting by people immune to the "good ole boy" politics of Be. C.I. I hope that doesn’t make me seem irrational to you in holding this opinion.

I will close and hope that you might provide me with some insights about this matter. I really don’t trust the Dept. of Corrections to do more than "rubber stamp" the Be.C.I. R.I.B. decision, because their primary concern seems to be that the procedures are followed by their form letter assessing that four criteria are followed in the R.I.B. process for Administrative Review. The inmate appeal seems to be moot, although some inmates have told me that they have won appeals. If you are aware of some authorities in the Dept. of Corrections who are genuinely interested in doing the right things in the due process concerns, then perhaps I may have an opportunity for an equal justice between the concerns of Be. C.I. and my own personal concerns about how I am to be regarded for the rest of my time in prison. Thank you, Ms. P. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Bradford 268—348O.C.I.

P.O. Box 511,Columbus, Ohio 43216