.. [ day thirty ] .. Polygrapher, "Uhm, you mean you haven't been hit by a truck, yet?"

So today, I was walked into the DOC, and I saw one of the polygraphers that is part of my law suite. The dialogue we had, was a little disturbing:

Myself, "Oh, Hi how is your day going?"

Polygrapher as he looks at me behind the DOC front counters glass window, "Uhm, you mean you haven't been hit by a truck, yet?"

Myself, "Nope, they all have your name on it, so I keep dodging them."

The secretaries in the office who over heard the conversation, sat their motionless. I was like WTF? Can you imagine, this guy making such a disturbing comment. Inside the DOC office walls, this guy gives polygraphs, some of who have to pay $150 an exam, to sex offenders, relying on him to interpret, with some respect of reliability! Or they will be incarcerated. (I always hear, 'Oh, you will not be incarcerated if you fail a polygraph.' But, when talking to many sex offenders, who have failed polygraphs on false-positives, you always here something quite differently. It is a fact, you do get arrested on polygraphs on false-positives. The fact that polygraphs alone do not lead to an arrest is a fiction. And the in reviewing both the best-practice and the results of the DOC Hearings, which are nothing more than a rubber stamp and a 'kangaroo court', it is evident that the many testimonies by these sex offenders are true, you get arrested on a polygraphers opinion and convicted on his report alone! Heck this guy wants to run me over, and is 'at ease' in saying this inside the DOC office. In front of fellow workers. But, in all honesty, this is no different in many ways from the many incorrect entries I have seen in chrono logs, the very same entries that caused me to start tape recording my DOC meetings!)

A man and a staff so willing to sit and accept such a comment, is disturbing. I mean, the statement is filled with bias, malicious intent towards wishing harm and more importantly a comfortableness to express this harm all within the confines of the DOC walls. But, I will be honest with you, this sex offender is not surprised. I have learned to live it being part of the DOC Special Sex Offender unit, on a daily basis. I saw it last year, when surprise polygraphs where being pushed upon me, and when I walked out from not failing, I saw the frustration in the CCO's faces. I saw it when I heard a CCO say, '..well you passed the exam because..' during a DOC hearing. It is fascinating, none of that information was mentioned when she decided to make a post conviction modus operandi on me. So she could blast to who ever wanted to hear it. I see ill unaccounted for behavior, in my everyday life, every time I walk into these offices.

Now, I never asked to roll the dice, it has been pushed upon me, under the auspices of not being anymore obtrusive than a urine or drug exam. I propose, that those exams have no test examiners wishing o run me over. Or is this case, for these exams to have the dice be loaded. I have talked to hundreds of sex offenders, and my feelings are affirmed.

What a dirty little game. One that looks great on paper ... great for CYA ... but does absolutely nothing for remediating the perception of a problem. Unless, of course you can discount, a government official, or someone acting in that capacity, being allowed to wish bodily harm on a sex offender as justifiable!

There was more about DOC. But, hey, its a record, that I just passed on to Senator Kohl-Welles, No changes. Just the same baited breadth.

Peace.

..[ night ten ].. simply exhausting research

Today, I ended up at the Western District Federal Court, doing exhausting legal research on the 1983 I have against the DOC of Washington and the Seattle Police Department. The law suite is a disappointment in social responsibility. It is about the capriciousness of how currently Washington sate creates their sex level registration levels. Although, that isn't the entire issue, a piece of it is the thrust of my argument, and in my case the abuse of that administrative task.

The other issue has much to do with does a probationer (sex offender or not) lose their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, due to their probationer status? Once again, this is not an entirely new subject matter, but what is new is the manner in which the DOC of Washington forces sex offenders and non-sex offender's to sign a modified Miranda waiver that does take all immunity away from offenders, or be incarcerated. The Federal government has ruled in many cases that when a government makes a person, as a condition of probation and under compulsion take a polygraph, then he/she must be given immunity (see United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Through the Offender Accountability Act (OAA) the Washington courts through State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326, 342-43, 957 P.2d 655 (1998), has construed that outside of treatment that any offender can be submitted to a polygraph exam. Although, there have been recent states such as the 1st circuit, United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (quoting Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 (1984)), that concurs with the Antelope decision, as part of a treatment condition, none to my knowledge, have allowed the polygraph to be elevated beyond this limited scope. Nor has any of them allowed for a waiver to be signed that removes all immunity guaranteed by Murphy, id., and both are at the heart of my complaint with the conditions imposed by the Washingtons' DOC CCO's who state give them the authority through the OAA. I had a polygrapher once tell me, "Why will you not sign this waiver, 100,000 other people before you have signed it!"

Sending sheep to slauther, I guess it took one bad sheep to stop and say, "WTF?"

I believe this legally is improper and the only precedence for it comes from this state. It is what I call the Bill-Gates Syndrome (BGS). Commit an act that is in the gray but legally constrained, until someone complains, then fight legally until you have lost a little of what you gained. In legal terms it is called getting fruits from the poisonous tree and in evidence gathering has a whole doctrine devoted to it. (The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.)

In the after been incarcerated and in the community arena I just call it abusive and disheartening to see our government act in such a predatory manner.

Now that the many parties to my complaint have been asked by that court to answer to my complaint, I felt it important to review all the Federal rules to continue my legal battle. I did get one answer from the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and it appears they are attempting to remove themselves from the liability that the DOC has created. But, after reading the Federal Rules of Court Procedure (FRCP) I was left exhausted. Do I really want to learn this?

It was productive and the librarian gave me good information and direction. I have often been in that library, but for the first time stood on the balcony, which is on the top floor of the building. 19 floor up.

WOW - what a view, and how so very far up. Looking down it was scaaaary.

Peace.