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

CONDITIONS OF INCARCERATION for WALT ANDERSON

(This is the web-enabled version of a report on Walt's treatment while in the DC facility)

LEGAL MAIL

LEGAL MAIL ACCESS AT CTF

Inmates held in correction institutions are routinely allowed to received confidential and privileged material from their lawyers.   The DC Department of Corrections has rule and regulations which effect both CTF and CDF and require all legal mail to be delivered in a timely manner and to be opened in the presence of the inmate rather than searched in private to protect the inmates legal rights.
CTF LEGAL MAIL

Prior to October 18th, 2005 CTF delivered most of Mr. Anderson’s legal mail using the correct procedures.  Mail however was often delayed and was not delivered per the CTF regulations which require delivery of legal mail 24 hours after receipt.

After October 18th, 2005 when Mr. Anderson was placed in solitary confinement CTF began to block almost all of his mail, including legal mail.  CTF officials held onto or returned legal sent Mr. Anderson during the time he was in solitary confinement.  In some cases this time sensitive legal material was held intentionally by CTF for over one month. 

Separate from this issue of not being able to receive any documents related to his criminal case by mail, this mail blockade was highly prejudicial to Mr. Anderson’s interests in relation to a number of civil legal matters.  Mr. Anderson missed a number of deadlines in a civil case to which he was a party due to this delay in receiving legal mail and this adversely effected his interests.  Holding mail, particularly legal mail was contrary to the CTF internal procedures and policies and a further violation of Mr. Anderson constitutional right to legal have access to his legal counsel. 

CTF went to the extreme effort to cut-off Mr. Anderson ability to order stamps, legal pads and pens from the commissary during the time he was held in solitary confinement.  Other inmates were not subject to this same treatment.   CTF took the unusual step of having Mr. Anderson’s mail screened by separately from the mail of other inmates.   CTF blocked his friends and family from sending him stamps which is a common and allowed practice at both CTF and CDF.  

CTF senior officials claimed that a small amount of stamps sent to Mr. Anderson were “contraband.   These “contraband” stamps were cited by the Warden Fred Figueroa as a reason to continue holding Mr. Anderson in Solitary Confinement beyond the 14 days designated by the disciplinary panel in relation to the cell phone incident.   On another occasion CFT opened Mr. Anderson outgoing sealed 1st class mail and claimed that he the numbers contained in the correspondence were an attempt by Mr. Anderson to communicate via a “secret code”.  CTF outgoing mail is normally not searched no notice was given to Mr. Anderson in relation to this change of policy which was a violation of his right to privacy.

CTF never actually brought any charges against  Mr. Anderson in relation to his friends and family sending small amounts of stamps or the “secret code”  claims because they knew that no violation of the rules had actually occurred.   

These extreme efforts on the part of CTF officials to cut-off Mr. Anderson’s legitimate communications with not only his legal counsel but also his family, friends and business associates in the outside world was another barrier which was erected intentionally to make it more difficult for him to effectively assist his legal counsel to prepare for the case against him.  These malicious and possibly illegal actions by the CTF officials created unpredictable and highly stressful conditions which made it difficult for Mr. Anderson to be able to take steps to protect his own legal interest.  After suffering form these unusual action by the CFT officials Mr. Anderson could no longer believe that the institutions holding him prior to his trial and at the request of the United States Federal Prosecutors were actually bound by any rules and regulations.  IMr. Anderson had good reasons to in fact fear for his safety.

CDF also routinely returned time sensitive legal mail and other mail as “NOT AT THIS ADDRESS”.  These improper returns of legal correspondence create delays and confusion which makes it  impossible to plan any collaboration between Mr. Anderson and his legal counsels which involve mailing documents. (SEE EXHIBIT 6)

CDF LEGAL

Legal mail sent to Mr. Anderson and other inmates at CDF is routinely delayed 2 to 4 weeks after it is delivered by the post office to the CDF facility.  This excessive delay creates serious problems in responding to time sensitive legal matters.  A percentage legal mail sent to inmates at the CDF is lost or is returned to sender in error.  This appears to be a general problem and while not to be specifically directed at Mr. Anderson, it had a significant effect on him since his case was so document intensive.

The CDF mail room has repeated opened and searched privileged and confidential legal mail addressed to Mr. Anderson.  Legal mail is required to be delivered to inmate and opened by an officer in front of the inmate.  This is a serious violation of the DC Department of Correction policies.  Mr. Anderson has submitted a number of Grievances on this issue and they have been completely ignored.

The routine delays in the Legal Mail, unpredictable search of legal mail and returns of legal mail made it impossible for Mr. Anderson to utilize legal mail to effectively communicate with and receive documents from his legal advisors.

PERSONAL MAIL / READING MATERIAL

CTF PERSONAL MAIL /READING MATERIALS

CTF mail room personnel returned over 46 packages containing books purchased by Mr. Anderson’s  friends and family from approved vendors.  These books were sent in a way which complied with all the requirements of the DC department of Corrections and CTF procedures.  CTF was never able to explain why these books were returned.  Mr. Anderson filed a number of Grievances with CTF in relation to the returned books In most case CTF simply denied that any books were ever returned even when Mr. Anderson provided copies of the document proving these returns.  CTF routinely just made up some completely ridiculous story to respond to the grievances filed by Mr. Anderson.  Mr. Anderson contacted the CTF mail room to try to resolve this matter.  Mr. Anderson’s friends and family also made a number of calls to CTF senior personnel on this issue.  CTF ignored the grievances filed, ignored the contacts from Mr. Anderson and his friends and family and continued to return properly ordered reading material address to Mr. Anderson.  EXHIBIT 7 shows six packages of reading materials returned to amazon.com in just a single 2 week period in December 2006

CDF PERSONAL MAIL  / READING MATERIALS

CDF delivers most incoming personal mail 2 to 4 weeks after it is received at the facility.   Outgoing mail is often delayed 1 to 2 weeks for no apparent reason.   These unusual delays created significant hardship for Mr. Anderson and made it difficult for him to maintain contact with his friends and family.  As part of their security procedures, CDF opens incoming mail to examine it for contraband.  This security requirement should not take weeks and there is no explanation why CDF personnel are processing  mail that arrived weeks in the past.  The security procedures only take a few seconds for each envelope.  Mr. Anderson has filed a number of grievances in relation to the excess delays in mail services.  No changes have been apparent and the actual grievances remain unanswered.

CDF delivers most of the books sent to Mr. Anderson, but the delays are routinely 3 to 6 weeks after the packages are delivered by the post office to the CDF facility.   Since Mr. Anderson is forced to spend over 20 hours per day in his small cell, reading is one of the only activities available to him.  Delays in receiving reading materials has created a very significant hardship for him and this has had a significant effect on his mental well being.

Most correctional facilities are able to deliver mail no longer that 24 to 48 hours after it received.  The lack of personal reading materials at the CDF (which has not reading library for inmates) has had a serious effect on Mr. Anderson mental health.

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

CTF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

CTF personnel responded to grievance rapidly.  The contents of the response however was never responsive to the complaint.  CTF either claimed the issue related to the grievance was wrong, did not exist or outright lied about what had happened.  Even when documentary evidence was attached to the grievance the CTF response was to ignore the evidence and insist on their imaginary explanation.

It was obvious that CTF compliance with the DC Department of Corrections Procedures required then to “answer” grievances.  It was equally obvious that their was no requirement to actually resolve them

CDF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

CDF has a formal grievance procedure which is been instituted to allow inmates to communicate any unresolved problems to the CDF officials.  In order to make a “grievance”  Inmate must fill out a multipart form  “IGP FORM 1 (revised 10/92)  (see EXHIBIT 8). The complete form is then placed in a secured receptacle in each unit.  The Grievance procedures of the DC Department of Corrections requires a receipt to be returned to the inmate making the Grievance immediately after the receipt of the Grievance form.   The procedure also requires a timely response to all grievances by the facility where the grievance was filed

Mr. Anderson has filed a number grievances at CDF and as of this date has never received a received any response whatsoever.  Grievances filed over 15 months ago still have not been answered.   A copy of most of the grievances filed by Mr. Anderson between April 26th and the present is shown in EXHIBIT 9.  

Mr. Anderson has tried to resolve the lack of response to his Grievance filings (see EXHIBIT 10) by corresponding with the appropriate CDF officers.  This correspondence has also resulted in no response whatsoever.

CDF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES DURING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

During the time that Mr. Anderson was held in  solitary confinement at CDF (November 29th, 2005 to April 26, 2006) the CDF staff in the NORTH-1 solitary confinement unit refused to proved the correct multipart grievance forms to inmates. Instead they provided inmate only a single copy of the IGP FORM 1.   These forms were widely available in other units of the CDF.  Mr. Anderson was not able to obtain a carbon copy of the grievances, which he filed during that time.   As with other grievances filed at the CDF, no response whatsoever was ever provided to these grievances.  The Grievance filed by Mr. Anderson during this period related to:  Abusive Treatment, Denial of Medical Care, Illegal Seizure of Legal Documents, Loss of legal Documents, Abusive Treatment,   Denial of Access to Recreation,  Denial of Access to Phones,  Improper Medically Mandated Diet and a number of other matters.

GRIEVANCE CONCLUSION

The CTF and CDF grievance procedures are not working at all.   At CTF Mr. Anderson did not receive any resolution to his grievances.  At the CDF Mr. Anderson has received no response whatsoever in relation to a numerous serious and issues.   His correspondence with officers who are administering the grievance procedures has also been ignored.  This leaves him with no effective way to resolve many of the serious issues at the CTF and CDF.  These continuing unresolved issues include  threats to Mr. Anderson’s his mental and physical health and issues relating to harassment and threats against him by  officers.

The grievance procedure is completely broken and does not seem to serve any function whatsoever other than to waste inmate’s time and delay the ultimate resolution of issues.  Grievances are time sensitive and need immediate action to resolve.  The DC Department of Corrections has created a corrupt environment in which inmates have no way to resolve issue within the institutions in which they are forcibly held.

CELL PHONE INCIDENT AT CTF

By early August of 2005, Mr. Anderson had been unable to obtain access to legal calls and had no other way to effectively have private and confidential calls with his legal advisors.

The CTF facility where Mr. Anderson was housed had many existing cell phones in each unit.  An inmate approached Mr. Anderson and offered his shared use of a cell phone that was already physically in the unit where Mr. Anderson was held in return for Mr. Anderson’s assistance in paying the monthly fees to operate this phone.  This actual cell phone had been in the CTF for a long period of time.  Mr. Anderson did not have any personal knowledge of how that particular phone actually was brought into the facility. He was told that it had been brought in by one of the officers more than 1 year prior.   Mr. Anderson was aware that CTF had substantial contraband in each unit which included cigarettes, cell phones and at times illegal drugs.  Mr. Anderson’s only contact with contraband was this particular phone which he shared with other inmates.  Mr. Anderson was told by other inmates that CTF officers including senior officers were paid to bring contraband into the facility.  Mr. Anderson did not have any prior contacts or connections with the CTF personnel or any experience with the DC criminal justice system to be able to verify these claims.

The prosecutors in Mr. Anderson’s case have made a number of claims related to this cell phone incident which have not proven to be true.  Mr. Anderson simply tried to “self help” in relation to his telephone needs at CTF.  Many inmates at CTF have been charged with cell phone “contraband” violations in the past.  This is not an unusual problem at the CTF.  Mr. Anderson was treated much more harshly for this violation than other inmates charged with the same exact offense.

Mr. Anderson was able to use this phone to maintain contact with his criminal legal counsel and also maintain contact with friends and associates at a much lower cost  and higher quality that the phone service provide by the CTF.  Mr. Anderson was desperately attempting to assist his legal counsel and at the same time maintain contact with the outside world

Mr. Anderson had no access to privileged legal calls at the CFT facility despite the false claims and broken promises of the CTF official Don Paul made at the behest of the Federal Prosecutors pursuing the case against Mr. Anderson.  Mr. Paul testified under oath at a May 2005 hearing as a prosecution witness. 

On October 18th, 2005, CFT senior security officers came into the unit D1A where Mr. Anderson was housed and went directly to his cell and found a cell phone and charger located there.  These officials did not attempt to search any other part of Mr. Anderson’s housing unit for any of the other contraband, which might be located there which included other cell phones and cigarettes.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS

CTF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CONDTIONS

The CTF SMU / Solitary Confinement unit contains 32 small cells in the basement of the CTF building A.

Mr. Anderson was placed into solitary confinement unit SMU-B at the CTF facility after he was charged with a “contraband” violation relating to a cell phone found his unit (CELL PHONE INCIDENT AT CTF above).  Mr. Anderson was given 14 days of “Disciplinary Segregation” in the SMU-B unit at the CTF in relation to this incident.  This 14 days was the only penalty mandated for Mr. Anderson in relation to this violation of CTF rules.   Once the 14 days of was completed Mr. Anderson expected to be returned to the General Population of the CTF.  This is how other inmates held in the SMU-B were normally treated for the violation of contraband rules relating to cell phones.  Even Inmates placed on “Disciplinary Segregation” for violent acts and much more serious violations were routinely returned to the general population once their “disciplinary” time was completed.  

Mr. Anderson was held in SMU / solitary confinement unit long beyond the time allowed by the DC Department of Corrections Regulations and Procedures and in violation of the written disciplinary policy of the CTF.  Mr. Anderson was entitled to weekly hearings to review his continuing housing in the SMU/Solitary Confinement Unit.  CTF Warden Fred Figeroa and other officials at the CTF falsified hearing reports on the 11th of November, 2005 when no hearing actually occurred and when many of these official were not even present at the facility.  

CTF officials imposed exceptionally harsh conditions on Mr. Anderson that were not imposed on other inmates which were in similar circumstances.  These conditions were not security related since other much more dangerous inmates with a long and violent history and prior records of escape attempts were not treated as harshly.  This harsh treatment included lack of access to face to face meetings with his lawyers, lack of access to personal social visits,  lack of access to personal phone calls, lack of access to law library and lack of access to commissary to order stamps, envelopes writing materials.

Mr. Anderson was placed in a cell on the ground floor of the unit.  He remained in this cell until November 25th, 2005.  Many of his personal possession were taken from him prior to his being placed into cell including most of his toiletries and clothing.  The “bed” for his cell consisted of a poured concrete platform connected to the outside wall of the facility.  A thin mattress was placed on this platform.  The outside wall was cinder block without any insulation.  The heating system in the cell was not functioning so during this very cold November the inside area of his cell was often below freezing.

The lowest temperature recorded for the Washington DC area during the time Mr. Anderson was held in the CTF SMU / solitary confinement unit was 22 degrees ( -5 C ) (temperature records are the National Weather Bureau as reported on the wundeground.com website) The temperature in the bed was especially cold since the thin mattress rested directly on concrete connected to the outside wall and the ground.  Mr. Anderson had a single thin blanket and no winter clothes.   Due to plumbing problems in his unit, the floor of his cell was often covered in a thin layer of water. These life threatening and tortuous conditions were well known to CTF officers and officials. 

Mr. Anderson requested heat, extra blankets or a jacket but these were not provided.  The temperature was so cold in his cell that even during the day that Mr. Anderson could not write notes or read his legal materials.    On the nights that temperature outside went below freezing the temperature in his Mr. Anderson’s sleeping area was also well below freezing.   (EXHIBIT 14 is copy of grievance filed in relation to the conditions in CTF solitary confinement)

When Mr. Anderson met with officials at a hearing on November 18th, 2005 which included the Warden of CTF Fred Figuroa, he described these tortuous conditions and requested help.  These officials laughed at his requests.  No action was taken to resolve the freezing temperatures and other environmental condtions that Mr. Anderson was exposed to.

No effort whatsoever was by the CTF and DC Department of Corrections to provide a safe and healthy environment in the SMU / solitary confinement area in other respects unrelated to temperature.  CTF officials instead carried out a psychological torture against Mr. Anderson by accusing him of additional violations of CTF rules which were a complete fantasy.  Friends and family of Mr. Anderson had previously routinely sent him stamps in the personal mail he received at the CTF. They continued to send stamps once he was transferred to the SMU / solitary confinement.  CTF officials including the Warden Fred Fiqueroa claimed that the small amount of stamps sent to Mr. Anderson were illegal “contraband”.  They claimed he might be charged with criminal charges in addition in relation to this “contraband”.    Don Paul a security officer at the CTF began the unusual step of searching Mr. Anderson outgoing first class mail without notice to Mr. Anderson that this mail could not longer be expected to be private.  This was done  without any Court Authorization.  All outgoing inmate mail is sealed 1st class mail and inmates at CTF are advised that outgoing mail is private.  CTF officials claimed that some numbers, which were included in one of Mr. Anderson’s outgoing letters, were part of a “secret code” and that this attempt by Mr. Anderson of secret communications was a further violation of the CTF rules.  These ridiculous assertions of course never resulted in any actual charges being filed against Mr. Anderson.

Security Officer Ashmead harangued Mr. Anderson, day and night, to provide information about how the cell phone found in his unit came into the CTF.  Mr. Anderson had already told Officer Ashmead  in writing that the phone was already in the unit when he began using it and that he had nothing to do with bringing it into the unit.  This was very ironic since Mr. Anderson had heard form other inmates that Officer Ashmead was one of the primary officers involved in bringing in cigarettes into the CTF.  Cigarettes are considered “contraband” at the CTF.    CTF has significant contraband issues including cigarettes, cell phones and illegal drugs and each unit has a number of contraband phone at any moment in time.  Mr. Anderson did not have any contact with any contraband other than the cell phone which he shared with other inmates and which was found in the cell that he shared with another inmate.

The CTF personnel blocked Mr. Anderson from ordering items from the commissary such as stamps, envelopes or writing materials during the time he was in the SMU/Solitary Confinement Unit to isolate him from communication with his family, friends and legal advisors.

The conditions imposed on Mr. Anderson in solitary conferment were draconian and tortuous.  The actions of the CTF official and staff in relation to Mr. Anderson’ minor violation the CTF regulations was completely out of proportion to the offense.  Mr. Anderson was treated differently and more harshly than other inmates who had committed the same offense.  The treatment Mr. Anderson received while held in SMU / solitary confinement unit at the CTF facility had a serious effect of Mr. Anderosn’s Mental and physical well being.

CDF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CONDTIONS

On November 25th, 2006, Mr. Anderson was moved to the Central Detention Facility (CDF) from Correctional Treatment facility (CTF) at the request of his legal counsel.  This was due the  refusal of the CTF facility to allow him to have access to his legal  counsel  and due to the draconian and illegal restrictions placed on Mr. Anderson at CTF.

When Mr. Anderson arrived at the CDF he was routinely screened and classified by a CDF Case Manager and was approved to go into the general population of CDF.   Mr. Anderson remained in the General Population of CDF until the evening of November 29th, 2006 when he was moved to the NORTH-1 Solitary Confinement Unit of the CDF.  This Unit, NORTH -1 is the same unit as the most violent and high security inmates were kept at the CDF.   Mr. Anderson was told that this move was for “his protection” and that the move was ordered from the “Wardens Office”.  (see EXHIBIT 17)

As part of this move to CDF Solitary Confinement, all of Mr. Anderson’s toiletries were taken from him.  He was left with a single set of and clothes.  His towel, washcloth, soap, toothbrush, toothpaste and toilet paper were taken.   He was not given any soap, toiler paper, toothbrush or toothpaste for 3 days.  He had no access to a shower for over 5 days.

During the 1st week in CDF Solitary Confinement, Mr. Anderson was not allowed access to a phone to contact his family or lawyers and inform them of his change in status.

CDF solitary confinement inmates are supposed to be allowed access to recreation outside their cells 3 times per week.  Inmates in the CDF solitary confinement unit also were supposed to be allowed telephone access 3 times per week.    Inmates were forced to choose between having access to the phone or having recreation.  In most other United States Based institutions inmates even at the highest security levels are allowed a minimum of 1 hour per day of recreation.

Inmates were only allowed access to showers 2 or 3 times per week for around 10 to 15 minutes each time.   This was the only time Mr. Anderson was routinely allowed out of his small cell.  

Even though Mr. Anderson was not being held in solitary confinement due to any violent incident or action on his part, he was treated the same as the most violent and dangerous offenders.  Each time he was out of his cell, even to go 20 feet down the hall to shower, he was chained (both hands and feet).  Officers in the solitary confinement unit often did not take these same security measures with other inmates who were incarcerated for more serious offenses.

Mr. Anderson was also chained (hands and feet) to go to legal and personal visits. Even though personal visits were through a glass panel and he had no contact with his visitors, Mr. Anderson remained chained.  Each time he was returned from a legal visit he was strip-searched. 

The explanation of why Mr. Anderson was being held in solitary confinement changed each time the CDF officials were asked.  Shortly after arriving at the Solitary Confinement Unit, Mr. Anderson attended a classification hearing to ask for a change of status back to the General Population of CDF.  The hearing board, consisting of 3 people, approved his request to go back to the general population, but he was later told that the Warden of CDF facility refused to sign-off on this recommendation.  Numerous personnel at he CDF indicated to Mr. Anderson and his legal counsel that they knew of no valid reason for Mr. Anderson remaining in solitary confinement. 

When he arrived at the CDF from the CTF, a Case Manager evaluated his previous disciplinary history at CTF, which include only the single cell phone incident and determined that Mr. Anderson should be in the General Population and then as noted above a independent Hearing Board also made the same determination.   There was no legitimate basis for CDF to treat Mr. Anderson in such a tortuous and draconian fashion.  It is likely that this was caused by influence of the prosecutors pursuing the tax case against Mr. Anderson on the senior officers of CDF.

Mr. Anderson’s legal counsel requested and obtained the files from CTF and CDF related to Mr. Anderson.  Records must to exist to document the orders to move Mr. Anderson out of the general population and into solitary confinement, but these records have not been provided as required by the DC Department of Correction Regulations. The files delivered by the DC Department of Corrections are incomplete and do not contain many records which must have existed.

<--Previous Page - Next Page -->

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