A call for reason and fairness in the case of
U.S. vs. Walter Anderson

CONDITIONS OF INCARCERATION for WALT ANDERSON

LEGAL VISITS

DC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION LEGAL VISITS

The regulations and procedures of the DC department of Corrections require that inmates held by them have access to legal counsel at all times.  These regulations apply to both the CTF and CDF facilities.    The DC Department of Corrections has a history of not complying with these requirements and has been subject to numerous court orders and legal challenges in relation to their compliance with these regulations.

CTF LEGAL VISITS

Routine legal visits at CTF prior to October 17th, 2005, were not handled well by CTF staff and officers.   It often took over 1+  hours for Walter Anderson to be escorted on the 3 minute walk from his unit to the visitor hall for legal visits.  Lawyers were also often delayed going through security to enter the facility.  These combined delays made legal counsel reluctant to visit routinely since a single short visit could take up ½ the day.  These delays occurred on almost every visit event when the facility and staff were not busy.

CTF senior officers and staff promised Mr. Anderson’s legal counsel that they would work with them to accommodate visits involving multiple legal counsel but when they were contacted and actually asked to do something they never responded at all or failed to keep the agreements they had made.

CTF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT LEGAL VISITS

Mr. Anderson was placed in “disciplinary segregation” /  “solitary confinement” for 14 days due to the staff finding a cell phone in his room. (see CELL PHONE INCIDENT AT CTF section of this document)  After that time CTF never allowed him have any face to face meetings with his lawyers at the CTF.  When Mr. Anderson’s lawyers tried to visit him, CTF either completely denied the visit or in some cases the CTF staff brought him to a visitors area with a thick glass window and without any means to speak with or hear his lawyers through this barrier.  Their was also no means to exchange documents between Mr. Anderson and his lawyers.   The electronic intercom in this sealed visitors area was not functioning at all.  The CTF staff jokingly suggested that that Mr. Anderson and his lawyers should shout loudly and they might be able to hear each other. 

The intentional actions of  CTF senior officials to deny Mr. Anderson access to his lawyers during this time was clearly a violation of his right to have access to legal counsel.  Mr. Anderson’s legal counsel did not believe that they could quickly resolve this clear violation of his rights orchestrated by the Warden and other senior officials at the CTF facility.  This unusual denial of access to legal counsel came at a critical time in Mr. Anderson’s trial schedule and made it completely impossible for Mr. Anderson to assist his legal counsel in any way during this time.

CTF officials were never able to justify in any way how Mr. Anderson having access to his legal counsel inside the highly secure and controlled CTF visitor area would be any threat to their security.  The CTF senior personnel refused to respond to requests from Mr. Anderson’s legal counsel on this issue and refused to provide any written response relating to the serious and unprecedented violation of Mr. Anderson’s right to have access to legal counsel.  It is likely that the CTF officials knew from their prior experience that if they just ignored their obligations under the law that it would put a significant burden of the violated party to resolve the matter and could take months or even years to resolve.  By the time Mr. Anderson legal counsel could obtain a remedy through the courts, he would have lost additional time behind bars and under tortuous circumstance and under the complete control of the very official who had denied him this basic right.

This restriction on Mr. Anderson in relation to access to legal counsel continued even after the 14 day  “disciplinary” period related to the cell phone issue was ended.  CTF Warden Fred Figeroa and other senior CTF officials indicated to Mr. Anderson that they had been in contact with the United State Federal prosecutors that were pursuing the criminal action against Mr. Anderson.  CTF officials stated that they had been provided with “information” which indicated that Mr. Anderson was a serious “security risk”.   It should be noted that this “information” containing very serious allegations and claims about Mr. Anderson, has not been documented in the DC Department of Corrections files which were subpoenaed by Mr. Anderson’s legal counsel in preparation for his sentencing hearing.  CTF has not provided any documentation or proof of these wild and irresponsible allegations against Mr. Anderson.  They have not been able to justify their decision to deny Mr. Anderson access to his legal counsel.  Mr. Anderson’s security classification at this time is MINIUMUM and he received the lowest possible security classification score on a recent classification conducted by the Case manager of his housing unit

Internal CTF memos signed by senior CTF officials  were posted on the door outside of Mr. Anderson solitary confinement room.  These posted memos,  which in violation to CTF policy and procedures and restricted Mr. Anderson’s telephone access and personal visits after long  the “disciplinary” period was over. (SEE EXHIBIT 4)

CTF officials including the warden falsified documents related to an internal hearing which they claimed was held on the 11th of November.   Mr. Anderson intended at this hearing to petition to be returned to CTF the general population due to the fact that his “disciplinary” period had ended the week before.  No November 11th, 2005 hearing was ever held, but false documents were prepared and signed by CTF Warden Fred Figuroa and other CTF officials.   Mr. Anderson was pressured by Warden Fred Figuroa and the other CTF officials to sign the November 11th false paperwork at a hearing held on the 18th of November.  CTF ignored multiple petitions by Mr. Anderson to be treated the same way as other inmates who had violated the same internal regulations.   Mr. Anderson was treated much more harshly than other inmates in the same exact circumstances.  Mr. Anderson was kept on “solitary confinement” long after the 14 day  “disciplinary”  period was over.  These discriminatory actions by CTF Warden Fred Figeroa and other CTF officials, were contrary to the DC department of Corrections procedures and CTF internal procedures and regulations which state that no one can change a decision of the disciplinary hearing by increasing the punishment. 

CTF and the DC Department of Corrections arbitrarily ignored their own regulations and procedures after communicating with the prosecutors in Mr. Anderson’s case.  CTF Warden Fred Figeroa freely admitted to Mr. Anderson on at a November 18th, 2005 that he had been in communication with the prosecutors.   The CTF facility is managed by a private corporation, Corrections Corporation of America, under contract to the DC Department of Corrections.   Corrections Corporation of America receives substantial revenues from their relationship with the Federal law enforcement authorities in Washington DC and in other part of the United States.  The CTF facility has an entire floor in building “C” which is dedicated to inmates that require special handling due the fact that they are informers working with the government.  Many of the inmates held in this special area of the CTF facility are United States Federal Prisoners and all are under the jurisdiction of the United States Attorneys.  This close relationship between the Correctional Corporation of America officials which operate the CTF facility and the United States Federal Prosecutors may to have taken precedence over the constitutional rights of Mr. Anderson and the regulations and procedures mandated by the DC Department of Corrections.

Mr. Anderson’s legal counsel determined that they did not have the time to pursue a legal solution to the violation of Mr. Anderson rights by the CTF officials which were apparently initiated by and encouraged  by the Federal Prosecutors.   Mr. Anderson’s counsel requested that he be moved to Washington DC Corrections Department CDF facility so that he could once again have contact with his legal counsel.

CDF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT LEGAL VISITS

On November 25th, Mr. Anderson was removed from the CTF facility at the request of his legal counsel and transferred to the CDF.   After arriving at the CDF, he was routinely “classified”  by a case officer for status in the general population and then placed into the general population.  After five days in the general population, Mr. Anderson, without any notice was  moved to the most secure solitary confinement block in the CDF facility (NORTH 1).  He was told that this change was ordered by the “warden’s office”.   (see EXHIBIT 17)

Inmates which are held in CDF solitary confinement are allowed face to face legal visits.  During these visits.  The downside is that during these legal visits Mr. Anderson was bound in highly restrictive leg irons, hand cuffs and chains. He had  to be escorted to each legal visit which created delays for his legal counsel.    These physical restrictions made it impossible for Mr. Anderson effectively review the numerous legal document and files related to his case with his legal counsel.  It is also not possible to take notes while in handcuffs.

The draconian requirement that Mr. Anderson remain chained hand and foot during the meetings with his lawyers legal also caused Mr. Anderson to suffer back and leg cramps and severe discomfort within a few minutes after being seated in the visitors with his lawyers.  This tortuously painful situation made it impossible for him to concentrate on his case and provide critical information to his legal counsel during these visits.

The procedures used on Mr. Anderson in the NORTH 1 “solitary confinement” unit were exactly the same as procedures applied to the most dangerous and violent criminals within the CDF facility.

LEGAL CALLS

CTF LEGAL CALLS

CTF procedures designated that each inmate was allowed to make one legal call of 10 minutes duration per week upon request.  Mr. Anderson made extensive efforts from the date he entered CTF until October 18th, 2005 to receive these mandated legal calls but was only able to obtain one single legal call in that entire 7 month period. 

The amount of effort to obtain that call was extensive.  His requests for legal call were ignored.  At other times the Case Manager assigned to his unit made specific agreements to provide a legal call at a specific future date and time and then failed to show up to provide these calls as agreed.  No amount of effort on the part of Mr. Anderson seemed to resolve this situation.  

Don Paul, a senior official at CTF, testified under oath as a witness for the prosecution, at the May, 2005 hearing related to Mr. Anderson’s continued incarceration as a possible “flight risk”.  Mr. Paul promised in his testimony that he, personally would be available to provide assistance for Mr. Anderson to receive legal calls each week or as needed.   Mr. Paul also made other completely false claims about the conditions and activities at the CTF facilities. After that hearing, Mr. Anderson’s Legal counsel at Chadborne Parke attempted to contact Mr. Paul more than 28 times (phone, voice mail and fax) and received no response to any of these calls whatsoever.  Despite his testimony under oath and his promises to the Court and Mr. Anderson’s lawyers, Mr. Paul made no effort to honor his promises which he had made under oath at the behest of the Federal Prosecutors pursuing the case against Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson also made extensive efforts at the CTF facility to have Mr. Paul comply with his sworn promises and claims.  Mr. Anderson sent messages to Mr. Paul through the officers in his unit,  by internal CTF mail and even by sending letters through the mail.  Mr. Anderson also received no response whatsoever from Mr. Paul.  On two occasions Mr. Anderson ran into Mr. Paul by accident in the hallways of the CTF facility and obtained a specific promise from Mr. Paul to meet with him at a later date and time.  Mr. Paul never showed up for these meetings and never contacted Mr. Anderson to make alternate arrangements. It became clear that Mr. Paul never had any intention to do anything in relation to Mr. Anderson than to testify to the court as he was asked to do by the Federal Prosecutors pursuing Mr. Anderson.  Mr. Anderson’s conditions of incarceration and access to legal calls was not changed in any way by Mr. Paul.  

Mr. Anderson finally wrote a letter to Mr. Paul which he arranged to have delivered by FEDEX to the CTF offices.  This letter accused Mr. Paul of perjury in his testimony at the May , 2005 hearing.  Mr. Paul did not respond to this letter.   (See EXHIBIT 5 for some of the Anderson correspondence with Mr. Paul)

Ultimately Mr. Anderson only received 1 additional legal call during the entire time he was at CTF. This call was provided by one of the case managers.  This failure to provide the mandated legal calls made it impossible for Mr. Anderson to have regular and confidential contact with his legal counsel.

CDF SOLITARY LEGAL CALLS

The CDF facility also had a policy allowing all inmates access to a legal call of 10 minutes each week.  Legal calls are supposed to be provided by the case managers in each unit upon request.  During the 181 days that Mr. Anderson was held in solitary confinement he received only a few legal calls.   The case manager in his unit was often absent for months at a time.  The legal calls he did receive were not at the time he requested when his legal counsel would be available in their office to receive his calls.  These calls were conducted in a office in the very secure NORTH 1 Unit at CDF, but in spite of that, Mr. Anderson was chained hand and foot to while using the phone.  Mr. Anderson could not hold the phone and at the same time access his files and take notes while bound in chains hand and foot

CDF LEGAL CALLS

Since Mr. Anderson was moved to the SE-2 Unit at the CDF he has only been able to make four legal calls.  Mr. Anderson made a request for a legal call each week, usually without results.  On two of these four legal calls the case manager cut the call short in less than five minutes so he could leave the office early.   This case manager claimed that inmates were only allowed a 3 minute legal call each week.

Even if Mr. Anderson had received a 10 minute legal call each week and was able to speak with his lawyers on each call, this could not possibly provide adequate phone contact with his lawyers to prepare help them prepare for his case.  Mr. Anderson’s case involved so many details,  documents and computer files that he really needed much more time to be in contact with his lawyers.

Mr. Anderson made numerous requests for legal calls and has made a number of Grievance Reports related the failure of the CDF to provide legal calls.  These complaints have been completely ignored.  None of the grievances that he filed related to the legal call issue have ever been answered as of the date of this report.

PERSONAL PHONE CALLS

CTF PERSONAL PHONE CALLS

The unit at CTF where Mr. Anderson was assigned had only three phones.  Two of these phones functioned well enough to be able to carry on a conversation.  These “working”  phones were in demand by other inmates and were often not available for use by Mr. Anderson. The phones were located in the main room near the television and the main entrance to the unit.  

The television located near the telephones was always at full volume and most of the inmates congregated in this area.  There were no chairs near the phones so they had to be used standing up.  Since these phone were in a public area it was not possible to have any kind of private or confidential conversation over these phones.

These conditions in relation tocalls made over the personal telephones at the CFT made it impossible for Mr. Anderson to effectively work with his legal counsel on a complicated and detailed case over these phones.

CTF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT PERSONAL PHONE CALLS

On October 18th, Mr. Anderson was moved to “Solitary Confinement” due to the cell phone disciplinary issue.  Even after a 14 day disciplinary period, Mr. Anderson was restricted from access to the phone.  Mr. Anderson was not treated the same way as other inmates. CTF senior officials issued  memos which were posted on the door to his cell in the solitary confinement unit.  These memos were contrary to the policies and procedures of the CTF and the DC Department of Corrections.  (SEE EXHIBIT 4)

CDF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT PERSONAL PHONE CALLS

Mr. Anderson was not allowed access to the phone at all during his first week in CDF solitary confinement even though the officers claimed that he was not being held for “disciplinary reasons”.  After the first week in the CDF solitary confinement unit, he was at times allowed to use the phone for a few minutes 2 or 3 times per week.  Due to the short time he often had access to the phone, Mr. Anderson also had to choose between using the time to have contact with his friends and family or to pursue the issues in his legal case Mr. Anderson was forced to choose between having exercise/recreation in a larger indoor area in the unit or to have the use of the phone.  CDF procedures  and regulations allow inmates to have both phone access to and a reasonable time for recreation while held in solitary confinement.  These regulations and procedures were ignored the entire time Mr. Anderson was confined to this unit. 

The Phone equipment available for the few minutes was often defective and not usable at all. 

CDF PERSONAL PHONE CALLS

Each unit at CDF has a number of phones which are available for inmate personal calls.  Inmates are allowed out of their cell for around 4 hours each days to take showers, watch TV or use the phone.   Mr. Anderson’s unit has 12 phones for 160 inmates.  Most of the phones have major technical defects which make them either completely inoperable or provides a very poor quality call (low volume, crosstalk, distortion and static). 

The personal phone system allows collect calls and prepaid calls to a limited list of 10 numbers.  The cost of calls is far in excess of the actual cost to provide service.  For example; The cost of calls charged by the phone system provider to calls terminating within the DC area is $1.23 for 15 minutes.  This is around 15 cent per minute.  The retail cost of terminating calls in the DC area is less than 1 cents per minute.   This means that on local Prepaid calls inmates are being overcharged over $1.00 per call;   Calls on the inmate phone system to areas outside the Washington DC area are charged to inmates at over 62 cents per minute.  The normal commercial cost of terminating calls to the rest areas outside of the Washington DC area is around 2.5 cents per minute.  On those calls the inmates are being overcharged over $9.00 per call.   These call charges add up quickly.

Calls to many phone numbers such as cell phones can not be connected with this system. 

The CDF personal phones are located in the central area of the unit.  They are in the most crowded and noisy areas in the unit and no effort has been made to provide any sound dampening material in the unit or near the phones.   Phones are placed close together so there is no any privacy on the calls.

A billing issue exists between the contract provider of personal phone service at the CDF and the Federal Public Defenders Office.  Mr. Anderson has not able to make collect calls to the Federal Public defenders Office the entire time he has been held at the CDF.   Mr. Anderson was only able to contact his lawyers with the assistance of friends or family who would connect a “conference” call to the lawyers after accepting a collect call form him.  This made it impossible for Mr. Anderson to have regular contact with his legal counsel and impossible to be assured of a completely private and privileged communication with his lawyer.

The Federal Public defenders Office lawyers representing Mr. Anderson did not want to have any detailed conversations over the personal phones and instructed Mr. Anderson accordingly.   They are not certain that these calls will be treated as privileged and confidential.

It has not been possible for Mr. Anderson to use the personal phone service provided at the CDF to effectively maintain the level of contact with his lawyers that is necessary to effectively work with them on his case.

LEGAL DOCUMENTS

CONIDITONS RELATED TO LEGAL DOCUMENT

The evidence in the criminal tax case which has been brought against Mr. Anderson includes hundreds of thousands of documents and over ten thousand computer files.  It  has not been possible for Mr. Anderson to effectively access this large amount of material while incarcerated.

The CTF and CDF staff have not been at all cooperative in to protecting even the limited amount  legal documents that Mr. Anderson’s lawyers were able to deliver to him.   Mr. Anderson did not have easy access to legal documents through his lawyers and by mail since legal mail was often lost, delayed or returned.

An entire box containing thousands of privileged and confidential materials was lost when Mr. Anderson was transferred form CTF to CDF on November 25th, 2005.  This material was never recovered.  This lost box contained some original documents and documents which were prepared by Mr. Anderson.  He attempted to recreate these lost documents while held in solitary confinement and without any access to the Law library and a computer.  It was not possible for him to do this.

IMPROPER SEIZURES OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS

A Court Order was issued on June 16, 2006  which specifically allowed Mr. Anderson to receive legal documents and computer disks from his legal counsel and to hold these documents in his cell.   The staff at CDF has intentionally ignored this Court Order and seized documents that legal counsel has delivered to Mr. Anderson.  This has occurred four times.   In some cases it seemed that document were seized out of spite and specifically due to the existence of the Court Order.   CDF officials returned the document to Mr. Anderson in the 1st 3 incidents after a few weeks after the intervention of his legal counsel.  Mr. Anderson is still awaiting the return of the documents recently seized as described below.  

On January 17th, 2007, Mr. Anderson was visited by his legal counsel and given some documents.  Many of these documents were time sensitive and urgent and required his immediate review.  As soon as his legal counsel left and Mr. Anderson attempted to return to his housing unit and the officer stationed at the 3rd floor Visitors Hall seized most of the documents that were delivered to him by his legal counsel. Mr. Anderson has made appropriate efforts to obtain the return of the documents taken.  These documents are of course subject to the clear Court Order issued on June 16th, 2006.  It is clear from correspondence received from CDF official on this matter that the CDF employees have actually gone through these document in detail and have not only searched them for “contraband” but have carefully read through most of the documents.  CDF officials could not possibly have any detailed understanding of the issues in the criminal case against Mr. Anderson, but they are now questioning the specific contents of the materials that they improperly took.  Mr. Anderson and his legal counsel had the expectation that his constitutional rights to private legal communications would be protected when these document were handed to him.  It is now clear that as long as Mr. Anderson is held by the DC Department of Corrections that he can no longer have any expectation that he will be able to have the ability to received and hold privileged legal documents.  He also can now have no confidence that he can have confidential communications with his lawyers now that his right have been so casually violated repeatedly.  Mr. Anderson wrote to CDF Warden William Smith as part of his efforts to have these documents returned (EXHIBIT 4).  As of February 9, 2007, the documents have not been returned.

CTF officers and officials have also seized documents form Mr. Anderson.  As of this date Mr. Anderson has made a number of written request for the return of these documents.  (see EXHIBIT 16)   Mr. Anderson has not received any response form CTF to his numerous requests for the return of these materials.

Corrections Officers including senior officers have been extremely abusive and threatening as part of these illegal seizures of documents.  Officers have also tried to seize the computer disks also allowed by the Court Order on numerous occasions in spite of the clear and concise language in the Court Order.  The attitude of the employees of the CDF is that they can do anything that they want and that there will be no consequences even to violating a specific Court Order.

LEGAL ACCESS CONCLUSION

The case against Mr. Anderson is complicated and involves hundreds of thousands of document and thousands of computer files.   In order for him to have effectively worked with his legal counsel to defend himself against the charge brought against him he needed to have access to these files and document.  The CTF and CDF facilities and the DC Department of Corrections have made extensive efforts to deprive Mr. Anderson of the ability to access the documents that he needed to defend himself against the charges being brought against him.   Mr. Anderson and his legal counsel have made a good faith effort to try to defend Mr. Anderson while he has been held in conditions which just are not conducive allow him to work effectively with his legal counselor to prepare a defense.  Mr. Anderson was not physically able to obtain access to documents and records which were essential to his defense.

<--Previous Page Next Page -->

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.