FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1 4-cv-00245-MSK-MJW
REVEREND MATT HALE,
Plaintiff,
V.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIF'F'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons ("Defendant" or "BOP"), through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff s Request to Produce as follows:
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1: Please explain why you have classified Reverend Hale's church,
The Church of the Creator, as a "security threat group," and the basis for that classification, providing the names of your employees responsible for the classification, the date upon which that classification was first made, the dates upon which it was renewed (if any) and which of your employees made that decision, and what procedure exists, if any, to remove that classification.
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as Creativity, the
(World) Church of the Creator, or the Creativity Movement (collectively, the "Creativity
Movement") has not been recognized by the BOP as a "church" or "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and/or law enforcement privileges. Third, Defendant objects to the request because it is compound and consists of multiple interrogatories. Without waiving these objections, the Creativity Movement has been designated as a Security Threat Group ("STG") because it has been involved in violent criminal activities driven by racial hatred or animosity.
Two influential figures in the Creativity Movement have been involved in high-profile acts of violence: Benjamin Smith, who went on a shooting rampage that resulted in the deaths of two people and injuries to many others, and Matthew Hale, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, who solicited the murder of a federal judge. Plaintiff, the most recognized leader of the Creativity Movement, has demonstrated his willingness and ability to continue to control and influence Creativity Movement members and followers on the street, from within prison. He has authored correspondence seeking to guide rank-and-file Creativity Movement members and followers' Through Plaintiff s efforts, the Creativity Movement is actively attempting to recruit new followers, primarily via the internet.
In addition to Plaintiff and Smith, other members and associates of the Creativity
Movement have documented violent histories, including the murder of an African-American Persian Gulf War veteran; a plot to instigate a race war by bombing an African-American church and assassinating Rodney King (during the arrest of a person associated with this plot, police seized pipe bombs, machine guns and racist paraphernalia, to include Confederate and Nazi flags and a framed portrait of Adolph Hitler); a plot to send a letter bomb to a rabbi; a plot to conduct a series of political bombings targeting synagogues, Jewish-related agencies, military facilities and radio and television stations; the bombing of the NAACP office in Tacoma, Washington; the racially motivated arson of an African-American family's home; several arson attacks against synagogues in California; and a plot to murder music artists Ice-T and Ice Cube. The latter plot included a plan to use sniper fire directed at other victims, based on race.
Other violent acts attributed to members and associates of the Creativity Movement include murder, murder for hire, lynching, violent extortion with intent to kill, violation of civil rights resulting in death, theft/possession of dynamite, assault, forcible sexual abuse, sexual assault of a minor, sexual contact with a three-year-old daughter, escape, bomb making, inciting a riot, race-related criminal activity, kidnapping, firebombing a synagogue, bank robbery, home invasion, hostage taking, and torture, among other crimes. Certain factions of the Creativity Movement are required to own and be proficient in using handguns.
This documented history of violence of Creativity Movement members and associates stands in contrast to the group's stated characterization of itself as "non-violent." This conflict between the group's history of race-driven violence and alleged espousal of non-violence demonstrates a mindset that is of grave concern to prison administrators. In a prison setting, race-related issues have the potential to cause major disruptions among the inmate populations.
The Creativity Movement meets the definition an STG, which is defined as an inmate group, gang, or organization acting in concert to promote violence, escape, drug, disruptive and/or terrorist activity.
Based on information about the Creativity Movement and the correctional judgment of BOP personnel, the Creativity Movement is monitored as an STG for any signs of activity that may cause disruption to institution safety and security , and or the safety and security of the public.
The Creativity Movement was designated as an STG in approximately 1993. The BOP no longer maintains records related specifically to that designation. Therefore, the BOP cannot identify the employee or employees who were involved in the designation decision. The designation would have been made by employees in the Correctional programs Division. Once assigned, the STG designation does not expire and therefore is not "renewed"; the Creativity Movement has continuously been designated as an STG since approximately 1993. There is no formal procedure for removal of an STG designation. However, an inmate may make such a request by means of the BOP's administrative remedy program. Defendant may supplement this response.
Interrogatory No. 2: Please explain, specifically, why black-oriented churches, including the Nation of Islam, the Black Moors, the Rastafarians, and all others known by you to exist within the B.O.P are not classified by you as "security threat groups" while The Church of the Creator, Christian Identity churches, and other white-oriented churches are.
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as the Creativity Movement has not been recognized by the BOP as a "church" or "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and/or law enforcement privileges. Specifically, revealing what groups have been designated as STGs may compromise institution safety and security and/or the safety and security of the public, and compromise the BOP's ability to effectively monitor those groups.
That information is subject to the law enforcement privilege.Therefore, other than the Creativity Movement, which is Plaintiff s group, the possible STG designation of other groups is not identified here. Moreover, information about the possible STG designation of other groups is not relevant because it has no bearing on the BOP's assessment of the Creativity Movement, which is Plaintiff s group and the focus of the issues raised in this case. Third, this interrogatory seeks information about other groups that is not relevant because the equal protection claim has been dismissed. Finally, the terms "black-oriented churches," "Christian Identity Churches," and "white-oriented churches" are vague because they are undefined.
Without waiving these objections, the fact that a group may be "black-oriented" or "white-oriented" does not affect whether the BOP recognizes the group as a religion and accords (1. By providing this example, Defendant does not waive the assertion of other privileges for this and other privileged information.) religious privileges to its adherents, nor is it determinative of whether the group may warrant a designation as an STG. The Creativity Movement is designated as an STG for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to interrogatory no. 1, above, which is incorporated herein by
reference. The BOP does not recognize the Creativity Movement as a "church" or "religion." The group is a hostile, racial separatist group that operates under the guise of religion. The group
discriminates against and disparages non-white racial groups and endorses race-driven violence.
It has a lengthy history of violence directed toward persons the group deems to be not "white." Non-white persons are excluded from participation in the Creativity Movement. The group uses the moniker of "religion" to espouse racial separatism and to promote racially divisive propaganda. This is demonstrated by the group's assertion "that our race is our religion'; its directive 'to populate the lands of this earth with white people exclusive and to "keep shrinking our enemies"; its belief that "the inferior mud races are our deadly enemies, and the most dangerous of all is the Jewish race"; and its admonition to have no dealings with Jewish people, "n------ or other coloreds"-to take just a few examples. These facts make the group a dangerous presence in a prison setting. Therefore, the Creativity Movement is not authorized, to function as a group, including as a religious group, in the BOP.
The ideology of the Creativity Movement stands in contrast with other groups that may highlight racial identity within their religious practices. This difference is a factor in the BOP,s decision to permit the latter groups to function as religious groups within the prison.
As for the examples referenced in this interrogatory practitioners of the Nation of Islam identify as Muslim in the context of African American culture. The BOP views inmates who are adherents of the Nation of Islam as Muslim. Nation of Islam religious services function in the (2. The June 16,2016,report of Dr. Mark Pitcavage provides a detailed explanation of the groups history
and ideology and may contain information that is responsive to this interrogatory. That report is incorporated herein by reference.) same manner as other Muslim religious services. Moreover, the Nation of Islam does not exclude persons who are not African American from its services. The BOP has observed that inmates of many races, including white, Hispanic and Asian, often attend Nation of Islam services. The same is true of the Moorish Science Temple of America (the "Black Moors" referenced in this interrogatory), which shares common origins with the Nation of Islam. Again, this group does not exclude people from its worship services on the basis of race.
Similarly, Rastafari is an African-centric religion, but it is not based on race or racially exclusive. Persons of all races can adopt, and be welcomed into, the Rastafari faith. The BOP has a number of white inmates who are Rastafari. As with the Nation of Islam and the Moorish Science Temple of America, the BOP allows Rastafari services, which do not exclude inmates based on race.
There are also "white-oriented" groups, to use the language in this interrogatory, that are authorized to function as religious groups in the BOP. These groups include Odinism and Asatru. There are important distinctions between these groups and the Creativity Movement. For example, although these groups may highlight their racial identity, the groups have a defined belief system that goes beyond the mere physical accident of race. They also have defined religious practices that are not based on race. The groups do not exclude other inmates on the basis of race. Promoting violence is not a tenet of these groups.
In contrast, groups that exhibit overt racial animosity, promote hostility toward other groups, and exclude others based on race are not authorized to function as religious groups in the BOP. Those groups include the Creativity Movement and Christian Identity, which are "white-oriented" groups, and the Nation of Gods and Earth (sometimes known as the "Five-Percent Nation" or the "Five Percenters"), which is a "black-oriented" group.
Defendant may supplement this response.
(3 While individual practitioners of any religion may sometimes seek to promote violence based on race, the faith groups discussed here are distinct from the Creativity Movement in that the promotion of a particular race to the debasement, detriment, or elimination of others is not a tenet of their belief systems.)
Interrogatory No. 3: Please explain why you object to Reverend Hale leading or "directing" his church in the outside world and why you believe that you have the legal or moral right to stop him from doing so.
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as the Creativity Movement has not been recognized by the BOP as a "church" or "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and or law enforcement privileges. Third, the BOP cannot discern how Plaintiff may define "moral right" and therefore objects to that aspect of the interrogatory as undefined and vague. In managing institutions and inmates, the BOP applies applicable federal laws and regulations.
Without waiving these objections, the BOP does not recognize the Creativity Movement as a "church" for the reasons explained in its response to interrogatory no. 2, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. Also, for the reasons set forth in the response to interrogatory no. 1, above, the BOP has designated the Creativity Movement as an STG. That response is also incorporated herein
.
Inmates are not allowed to hold positions of leadership or authority in groups or organizations outside the prison, whatever the nature of the group-i.e. ,business, professional, philanthropic, political, or religious (although, to be clear, the BOP does not view the Creativity Movement as a "religious" group).4 By way of example, once incarcerated, an inmate cannot maintain his position as an officer of a company or engage in any other conduct related to his former business; he cannot practice the profession he practiced before his incarceration; and he cannot serve in a leadership role in any civil, cultural, or political organization outside the prison.
(4. This proscription means that, even if the Creativity Movement were religious in nature, plaintiff still would not have been allowed to assert leadership or authority in that group. In other words, the religious nature of an outside group is beside the point-an inmate may not hold positions of leadership or authority in an outside group.)
He also cannot function as a religious leader or cleric, such as a priest, imam, rabbi, or minister. To take a specific example, a priest in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian churches could not continue to serve as a confessor or spiritual guide to persons outside the prison.
Participating in roles like these is one of the many rights an inmate surrenders when he is convicted and incarcerated. [in short, as a federal inmate, Plaintiff is not allowed to direct any organization or group from prison, let alone a group like the Creativity Movement that raises serious security concerns and that has been designated by the BOP as an STG. See 28 C.F.R. $ 541.3, Prohibited Act No. 334 (conducting a business is a "Moderate Severity Level Prohibited Act"); see also 28 C.F.R. $ 540.14(d)(4) (authorizing the Warden to reject correspondence that includes "direction of an inmate's business")
Plaintiff is also not allowed to direct the Creativity Movement from his prison cell because, in the BOP's assessment, his leadership role poses a potential security threat to persons outside the prison. The BOP has evaluated extensive information about Plaintiff, including his criminal history, his contacts outside the prison, the nature of his communications with people outside the prison, and his known influence over people outside the prison. (That information has been and is continuing to be produced to Plaintiff in discovery, which is ongoing.)
As detailed in its response to interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2, above, Plaintiff and other adherents of the Creativity Movement-many of whom view Plaintiff as their supreme leader-have a dangerous history that includes racially motivated violence. With regard to Plaintiff specifically, his leadership role in the Creativity Movement has triggered violent acts by his followers and admirers, including Benjamin Smith (who targeted and killed victims because of their race) and William White (who targeted the foreman of the jury that convicted Plaintiff).
Plaintiff himself is incarcerated for soliciting one of his followers to murder a federal judge
Plaintiff described as a "Jew rat." In the correctional judgment of the BOP, allowing Plaintiff to
business" is construed as running any outside organization or group.... (5. The term "conducting a business" is construed as running any outside organization or group).....lead the Creativity Movement poses a security risk because it may trigger acts of violence by persons outside the prison, even if Plaintiff does not issue an explicit directive to harm others.
Defendant may supplement this response.
Interrogatory No. 4: Please explain the basis for your denial of Reverend Hale's allegations in paragraphs 26,28-30, and 55-56, of his Amended Complaint, specifically stating what criminal laws or B.O.P. policies you believe he has violated with his correspondence at ADX, how his correspondence has posed a "threat" and in what exact manner in the past, and what information and evidence you have otherwise that justifies your denial of these enumerated paragraphs of Reverend Hale's Amended Complaint. Provide the dates of his supposedly violent, illegal, unlawful, or
rule-violative actions as a prisoner, when he was accused by staff of same, and otherwise explain your denial of these paragraphs of Reverend Hale's Amended Complaint, paragraphs that should have been admitted as far as he is concerned. If you believe that he has ever violated a specific B.O.P. rule with his correspondence, please name the rule.
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as the Creativity
Movement has not been recognized by the BOP as a "church" or "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and/or law enforcement privileges. Third, Defendants objects to the request because it is compound and consists of multiple interrogatories. Fourth, Defendant objects to any aspect of this interrogatory that expresses Plaintiff s opinion about how Defendant should have responded to the allegations in his complaint, which is neither a proper question under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 nor a defining legal standard.
Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Paragraph 26: Plaintiff was not designated to the ADX because of his "religious or ideological beliefs," but because he was subject to Special Administrative Measures ("SAMs"). The security controls available at the ADX allowed for effective implementation of the communications restrictions in Plaintiffs SAMs, which took into account the nature of his crime and his influence among his followers and supporters outside the prison, including persons associated with the Creativity Movement-a group with a demonstrable history of race-driven violence that is designated by the BOP as an STG. See Defendant's responses to interrogatories no' 1, no' 2, and no. 3, above, which are incorporated herein by reference. Moreover, as explained in the preceding incorporated responses, the BOP does not recognize the Creativity Movement as a religion.
Plaintiff has sent and has attempted to send correspondence that violates BOP policy. His correspondence with persons outside the institution was deemed to constitute a security risk, and, as an inmate, he is not allowed to lead the Creativity Movement-or any other group. ,See Defendant's response to interrogatory no. 5, below, which is incorporated herein by reference. A large amount of Plaintiff s correspondence in which he purports to assert a leadership role (including as the "Pontifex Maximus") over the Creativity Movement, and/or provides directions or guidance to persons associated with that group, has been produced in discovery. The answer to the portion of this interrogatory requesting "the dates of Plaintiff s] supposedly violent, illegal, unlawful, or rule-violative actions as a prisoner," may be determined from those BOP records. Plaintiff is able to see as well as Defendants where his correspondence purports to assume a leadership role or provide guidance and direction to others. Therefore, "the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party[.],, ,See Fed. R. Civ' P' 33(d). Therefore, Plaintiff is referred to the correspondence that has been produced to him in discovery.
As Plaintiff asserts in his complaint, BOP personnel explicitly informed Plaintiff on multiple occasions that he was not allowed to direct the Creativity Movement, to function as an ordained "minister," and to be "Pontifex Maximus ." see Doc. 10 at $fl 33, 34,3s,36,39, 50.
The BOP maintains no records that would allow it to ascertain the dates on which those verbal admonitions were given to Plaintiff.
Paragraph 28: As explained in the response concerning Paragraph 26, above, and the response to interrogatory no. 5, below, which are incorporated here, the BOP's assessment of Plaintiff s correspondence is that his resumption of a leadership role in the Creativity Movement, with its history of race-driven violence outside the prison and its designation as an STG, constituted a security risk that could jeopardize the safety and security of persons outside the prison. Plaintiffs correspondence therefore had the potential to "foment] or encourage] violence" against innocent persons, which would have constituted a crime.
Paragraph29: Please see the response concerning Paragraph26, above, and the response to interrogatory no. 5, below, which are incorporated here.
Paragraph 30: Please see the response concerning Paragraph 26, above, and the response to interrogatory no. 5, below, which are incorporated here.
Paragraph 55: Please see the response concerning Paragraph 26, above, and the response to interrogatory no. 5, below, which are incorporated here.
Paragraph 56: Please see the response concerning Paragraph 26, above, and the response to interrogatory no. 5, below, which are incorporated here.
Defendant may supplement this response.
Interrogatory No. 5: Please explain, specifically, why you imposed a mail ban upon
Reverend Hale in July 2010 and again in January 20l3,why these bans were each imposed for six months, and why you did not give him the opportunity to alter the tenor or nature of his mail
to your satisfaction prior to imposing the mail bans-why, in other words, didn't you at least give him a warning before imposing the mail bans so that he could successfully adjust his conduct without losing his mail to his friends and others altogether?
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as the term "mail ban" is a misnomer. Plaintiff was not "banned" from sending or receiving mail, but limited in the scope of his correspondents. Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and or law enforcement privileges. Third, Defendant objects to the request because it is compound and consists of multiple interrogatories, including interrogatories about two different sets of restrictions.
Without waiving these objections,Defendant responds as follows
July 2010 restricted general correspondence: Plaintiff was placed on restricted general correspondence status in July 2010 because his correspondence with persons outside the institution was deemed to constitute a security risk. See 28 C.F.R. g 5a0.15(a)(3) (authorizing the Warden to place an inmate on restricted general correspondence status when the inmate is determined to be a "security risk"); id. at $5a0.15.(a)(1) (authorizing the Warden to place an inmate on restricted general correspondence status when the inmate is determined to have engaged in any of the activities listed in $ 540.14(d)); id. at $ 540.14(d) (inmate sends or receives correspondence determined to be "detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, to the protection of the public, or that] might facilitate criminal activity''). In the correctional judgment of the BOP, both Plaintiff and his supporters and followers outside the institution, including those affiliated with the Creativity Movement and other white nationalist groups, constitute a security risk. The basis for this assessment is set forth in the BOP's explanation of the reasons for designating the Creativity Movement as an STG and for declining to recognize the group as a religion. See the responses to interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2, above, which are incorporated herein by reference.
After the removal of Plaintiff s SAMs in February 2009, and the subsequent removal of his post-SAMs restricted general correspondence status in August 2009,Platntiff immediately began to reach out to his followers and supporters in the Creativity Movement and affiliated white nationalist groups. Then, in approximately June 2010, Plaintiff sought to officially resume a leadership role in the Creativity Movement, proclaiming to individuals with leadership roles in the Creativity Movement and two affiliated groups that he was resuming the role of "Pontifex Maximus pro tempore ('for the time being')." ,See BOP 4220-4222. Plaintiff sent each of these individuals a lengthy "address" in which he provided "instruction and observations" for the reunification and management of the Creativity Movement. He directed the three recipients of his letter to disseminate his address to "creators" by website and email.
At that point, when Plaintiff publicly placed himself in the most powerful position in the Creativity Movement, the BOP determined that he should be placed on restricted general correspondence status.
In making that decision, the BOP took into account the security concerns associated with Plaintiff and his followers and supporters in the Creativity Movement described in the responses to interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2, above. The BOP evaluated Plaintiff s propensity to act in ways that promoted violence based on race, and the agency considered that nothing in his post-SAMs communications reflected a change of heart or a retreat from the ideology that led to his conviction for solicitation of murder.
The BOP also considered the fact that inmates are not allowed to run organizations or groups of any kind outside the prison. ,See response to interrogatory no. 3, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. The BOP concluded that Plaintiff s resumption of a leadership role in the Creativity Movement, with its history of violence outside the prison and its designation as an STG, constituted a security risk that should be addressed by restricting Plaintiff s correspondence. January 2013 restricted general correspondence: Plaintiff was placed on restricted general correspondence status in January 2013 because his correspondence with persons outside the institution was deemed to constitute a security risk. See 28 C.F.R. $ 540.15(aX3) (authorizing the Warden to place an inmate on restricted general correspondence status when the inmate is determined to be a "security risk"); id. at $ 5a0. 1 5. (a)(1 ) (authorizing the Warden to place an inmate on restricted general correspondence status when the inmate is determined to have engaged in any of the activities listed in $ 540.14(d)); id. at $ 540.14(d) (inmate sends or receives correspondence determined to be "detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, to the protection of the public, or [that] might facilitate criminal activity").
As with the assessment that preceded the 2010 restrictions, in the correctional judgment of the BOP, both Plaintiff and his supporters and followers outside the institution, including those affiliated with the Creativity Movement and other white nationalist groups, constitute a security risk. The basis for this assessment is set forth in the BOP's explanation of the reasons for designating the Creativity Movement as an STG and for declining to recognize the group as a religion . See the responses to interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2, above, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Immediately after the July 2010 restrictions were removed in January 2011, Plaintiff resumed his efforts to direct and manage the Creativity Movement by means of his correspondence to his followers and supporters in the United States and abroad, which frequently included directions to disseminate his communications via website.http://creativitymovement.net/ By at least May 2011, he was discussing the possibility of again being designated "PM pro tempore," stating that if his "right" to lead the Creativity Movement' is acknowledged, I will exercise it fully for as long as it takes as PM of all Creators on this earth until I find someone worthy to be elected by the College of Electors." By at least January 2012, he was directing people outside the prison to address him as "Pontifex." By means of his correspondence, Plaintiff provided instruction on matters concerning the group, including financial issues, building Creativity "ministries," and the conduct and ordination of Creativity "ministers." He provided instruction to groups affiliated with Creativity. Plaintiff affirmatively reached out to other white nationalist groups, including the National Socialist movement, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the United States. He wrote an article for publication on a website maintained by the Aryan Nations, another group known for its anti- Semitism and white nationalism. Members of such groups reached out to him for guidance and to offer their support.
In the BOP's assessment, the risks associated with Plaintiff s correspondence escalated in
January 2013. Plaintiff attempted to send correspondence to the Commander of the National
Socialist Movement, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the United States, advising the Commander to employ "mass activism tactics" as the "only way that we can win." This attempt demonstrated Plaintiff s efforts to control not only the Creativity Movement, but to exert a more expansive role in guiding a wider spectrum of white supremacist activity among other groups.
Plaintiff s correspondence to the National Socialist Movement was thus viewed as a difference in kind, not just degree. Viewed in the context of Plaintiff s history, including his influence among
white nationalists outside the prison, the correspondence raised concerns that plaintiff s communications posed increasing risks to the safety and security of the public. The decision was made to place Plaintiff on restricted general correspondence status in January 2013.
As with the July 2010 restrictions, the BOP took into account the security concerns associated with Plaintiff as described in the responses to interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2, above. The BOP evaluated Plaintiff s propensity to act in ways that promoted violence based on race, and the agency considered that nothing in his post-SAMs communications reflected a change of heart or a retreat from the ideology that led to his conviction for solicitation of murder. Rather, his communications reflected an adherence to that ideology and a willingness to transmit his ideas in ways that could endanger others.
The BOP also took into account the fact that inmates are not allowed to run organizations or groups of any kind outside the prison, and that the correspondence to the Commander of the National Socialist Party appeared to be directed toward that end. .See response to interrogatory no. 3, above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Response to remaining questions in this interrogatory:
It is not the BOP's practice to provide a "warming" to an inmate before implementing correspondence restrictions. The relevant federal regulation does not provide that the BOP must give the inmate a "warming" prior to imposing communication restrictions. Rather, consistent with the regulation, the BOP notifies the inmate that restrictions will be implemented under 28 C.F.R. $ 540.15, which the inmate can then appeal through the BOP's administrative remedy program. The BOP's practice, which was utilized in Plaintiff s case, is to review restricted general correspondence status at six-month intervals. See 28 C.F.R. $ 540.18(d) (providing for review of a communications restriction at least every 180 days).
Request No. 6: Please provide the names and job roles of all those involved in imposing
the two mail bans at issue in this case, including the names of those individuals not employed by the B.O.P. if any such individuals were indeed involved.
RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request insofar as the term "mail ban" is a misnomer. Defendant assumes that Plaintiff refers to the two periods of time when Plaintiff was placed on general correspondence restrictions. Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and or law enforcement privileges. Third, Defendant objects that the term "all those involved" is undefined and therefore vague. Fourth, Defendants objects to the request because it is compound and consists of multiple interrogatories, including interrogatories about two different sets of restrictions. without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows:
July 2010 restricted general correspondence: Warden B. Davis, Associate Warden L. Milusnic, Unit Manager P. Rangel, Special lnvestigative Agent D. Krist, Special Investigative Services Technician S. Smith, attorney B. Brieschke (who provided legal advice), and attorney C. Synsvoll (who provided legal advice).
July 2010 restricted general correspondence: Warden D. Berkebile, Associate Warden S.
Kuta, Unit Manager P. Rangel, Special lnvestigative Agent D. Krist, Special Investigative Services Technician H. Redden, attorney B. Brieschke (who provided legal advice), and attorney C. Synsvoll (who provided legal advice).
Defendant is aware of no persons other than those listed above who were "involved" with the placement of Plaintiff on restricted general correspondence.
Interrogatory No. 7: Please state, specifically, what conduct on Reverend Hale's part today and in the future with regards to his participation in his church and religion, would lead to the imposition of another mail ban; please state exactly what is forbidden by you and what is not as far as his conduct on behalf of his church and religion is concerned.
.
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as the Creativity Movement has not been recognized by the BOP as a "church" or "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney -client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and/or law enforcement privileges.
Without waiving these objections, it is impossible for the BOP to state 'exactly' 'what conduct by Plaintiff may warrant the imposition of restricted general correspondence status in the future because the BOP has no way of knowing exactly what Plaintiff may write. Nor can it answer this question without knowing the relevant context in which those future communications may arise. Many concerns may exist that cannot be anticipated at this time. The BOP will conduct an individualized assessment of each piece of Plaintiff s mail. If, in the correctional judgment of the BOP, Plaintiff s communications are found to constitute a security risk, or if they meet any other criteria set forth in 28 C.F.R. $$ 540.14 and 540.15, restrictions may be imposed. In addition, if Plaintiff s correspondence is assessed as showing an effort by him to lead or issue guidance and directives to the Creativity Movement (or any other group) restrictions may be imposed. See the response to interrogatory no. 5, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. If Plaintiff engages in any conduct that violates federal law or BOP policy, restrictions may be imposed.
Interrogatory No. 8: Please explain, specifically, why you disdain Reverend Hale's Creativity religion, why you don't want him to provide written sermons to the public espousing that religion, why you don't want him to be Pontifex Maximus of his church, and why you deem it a "threat " that he be involved in such away in his church, both in the past and on an ongoing basis, if that is indeed the case.
RESPONSE: Objection. First, Defendant objects to the request insofar as the Creativity Movement has not been recognized by the BOP as a "church" or "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and/or law enforcement privileges.
Without waiving these objections, as explained in the responses to interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2, above, which are incorporated herein by reference, the BOP does not recognize the Creativity Movement as a "religion." the assessment of the BOP, the group is a hostile, racial separatist group that operates under the guise of religion and that warrants designation as an STG. This is not a matter of "disdain," but rather the result of a correctional assessment to determine how to manage a group that claims its race to be its "religion."
A group based solely on that racially divisive premise cannot be accorded religious privileges in a racially diverse prison without compromising the security of the institution. Allowing Plaintiff to function as the leader of this group potentially poses a threat to the safety and security of persons outside the prison as well. No inmate, including Plaintiff is permitted to run any group outside the prison, let alone a group the BOP has designated as an STG. Defendant refers Plaintiff to its responses to interrogatories no. L, no. 2, and no. 3 above, for a further explanation of each of these points.
Interrogatory No. 9: Please explain why you only provide one kind of food tray for all of the religions that exist within the B.O.P., so-called "common fate," regardless of the tenets of
those religions. Are you aware that a single menu for all of those religions that are known to exist within the B.O.P. is certain to violate the tenets of many religious faiths?
RESPONSE: Objection. First, to the extent this interrogatory presumes to include the
Creativity Movement is its definition of "religion," the BOP has not recognized that group as a "religion." Second, Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and/or law enforcement privileges.
Without waiving these objections, the "common fare" food tray, known as the "Certified Food Menu" or "Certified Food tray," was adopted to accommodate the largest number of BOP inmates who required a religious diet that could not be met with other existing options. Historically, Jewish and Muslim inmates make up the overwhelming percentage of inmates who request a religious diet. The Certified Food tray, which meets both kosher and halal standards, accommodates the dietary needs of both Jewish and Muslim inmates. Modifying the Certified Food Tray accommodates inmates outside the Abrahamic religions, i.e., mainstream Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. For example, a recent request from an inmate who sought a vegan diet on religious grounds was satisfied by altering the Certified Food tray. The statement in this interrogatory that the Certified Food tray "violates the tenets of many religious faiths within the B.O.P." is inaccurate.
Interrogatory No. 10: Please identify the particular B.O.P. personnel who compiled the following enumerated "intelligence briefings" you produced in discovery: 3763-3764,3786-3787, 4146, 4747-4148, 4213-4214, 4216-4218, and 4220-4222, as well as the individuals who compiled the "intelligence summary" at i0004-10016 and the "threat assessment" atI0I77-10190.
RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request to the extent it may seek privileged information, including materials containing information protected by the attorney-client, attorney-work-product, deliberative process and or law enforcement privileges.
Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows:
BOP 3763-3764: H. Redden
BOP 3786-3787: H. Redden
BOP 4146: At this time, the BOP has not been able to identify the person who prepared this
document. The BOP is continuing to search for responsive information and will update this response, as appropriate. BOP 4147-4148: At this time, the BOP has not been able to identify the person who prepared this document. The BOP is continuing to search for responsive information and will update this response, as appropriate.
BOP 4213-4214: S. Smith
BOP 4216-4218: S. Smith
BOP 4220-4222: S. Smith
BOP i0004-10016: The BOP does not maintain records that would allow it to identify the particular BOP personnel who prepared this document, which dates to 1999. However, the document would have been prepared by personnel in the BOP's Intelligence Unit.
BOP 10177-10190: Keith Evans
I, Tony Garrow, do hereby verify pursuant to 28 U.S.C . 5 1746, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33, and under penalties of perjury, that the foregoing responses to interrogatories, insofar as they concern information about the security risks posed by inmate Hale and the group
known as the Creativity Movement, are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief, based upon information provided to me in my official capacity.
Executed this 15th day of July,2016.
s/ Tony Garcow
Tony Garrow
Chief Sacramento Intelligence Unit Federal Bureau of Prisons
I, Chaplain Michael Castle, do hereby verify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. I 1746, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, and under penalties of perjury, that the foregoing responses to interrogatories, insofar as they concern information related to religious practices, policies, and accommodations in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief, based upon information provided to me in my official capacity.
Executed this 18th day of July ,2016.
s/ Michael Castle Michael Castle
Regional Chaplain
North Central Region
Federal Bureau of Prisons
I, Christopher Synsvoll, do hereby verify pursuant to 28 U.S.C . I 1746, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 33, and under penalties of perjury, that the foregoing responses to interrogatories, insofar as they concern factual information about inmate Hale's past placement on restricted general correspondence status, are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief, based upon information provided to me in my official capacity.
Executed this 18th day of July,20T6.
s/ Christopher Svnsvoll
Christopher Synsvoll
Supervisory Attorney
Consolidated Legal Center
ADX
DATED July 18,2016.
As to legal objections:
JOHN F. WALSH
United States Attorney s/ Susan Prose
Assistant United States Attorney
1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 454-01 00
Facsimile: (303) 454-0407
E-mail : susan.pros e@usdoj . gov Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 1 8,2016,I delivered the foregoing document to BOP personnel for hand delivery to:
Matthew Hale
Reg. No. 15177-424
s/ Susan Prose
Susan Prose
THE CREATIVITY MOVEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment