Sean’s Statement before RIB

Sean sent us a copy of what he wrote for his opening statement before the RIB board on April 31st. We transcribed it and combined it with other notes and details he has sent to us.

I have four issues to raise for the record before addressing the facts of the case, if I may.

First, the State of Ohio is in breach of contract, which precludes the holding of a disciplinary hearing and qualifies as grounds for dismissal of these charges.
The State of Ohio is a “creature of law”. It is not a living thing. It is brought into existence by a legal document. In this case, the Ohio Constitution. That legal instrument, the Ohio Constitution, is the creating document for the State of Ohio, bringing it into existence.
Like all contracts, the Ohio Constitution describes the duties and powers of the parties. In this case, there is The State of Ohio, the government, and the People, who are subjects. The state has powers designated to it – the power to make laws and enforce them – and it also has duties – the duty to protect rights. Those are terms of the contract.
Subjects, you and me, also have powers and duties. We must obey the laws, which is a term of the contract.
Article I of The Ohio Constitution provides in part that the State of Ohio must protect my right to free speech. This is a duty The State of Ohio has – a contractual duty. On 19 September, the State of Ohio breached that duty. I was placed in a torture cell on torture cell row, my rough draft of a published article and my typewriter were confiscated and I was subjected to a long ordeal admittedly for protected speech. The State of Ohio has undone the disciplinary findings and in this conduct report the State admits that there was a focus on my protected expression. When the State of Ohio did that to me, it violated the terms of the Ohio Constitution. It violated the contract.
There are consequences from violating a contract.
If you and I have a contract that I will de-ice your windows in the morning if you pay me $5 per day, we have a contract. On Monday, I de-ice your car windows. On Tuesday, you pay me $5 and I de-ice your windows. But on Thursday, I don’t de-ice your windows. When I come to you on Friday for $5 will you pay me? I ask, because your part of the contract requires you to pay me $5.
You certainly won’t pay me – because I breached the contract. When I breached the contract, I released you from your obligations. You no longer have to meet your end because I defaulted on my end.
Well, the same situation here. The State of Ohio had a contractual duty to protect my right to free speech. It’s part of the contract, and in breaching the contract, it released me from my obligations.
The State of Ohio crumpled up the contract. Ohio’s laws are passed by the legislature, which derives it’s power from that contract. No contract, no laws. The State of Ohio told me the laws do not apply. It released me from its laws. It breached the contract. I no longer had to follow its laws anymore than you had to pay me $5 for services I’m no longer performing.
The State of Ohio released me from the contractual obligation of following it’s laws on 19 September when it breached its contract. Its actions said the laws do not apply here. Lt Dahlby expressly told me the laws do not apply here. So, from 19 September, 2012 until The State of Ohio admitted what it did and attempted something curative – at least until then – there was an absence of law between The State of Ohio and me. You, the State of Ohio, said so.
Well, herein is the problem. The rules of conduct that the State is now attempting to prosecute are a product of the Ohio Administrative Code – the very law that the State of Ohio released me from following when it breached the contract on 19 September and punished me expressly for protected speech.
As I was released from the contract, I cannot be held to its terms. The State of Ohio has no standing to bring these claimed rules violations and the conduct report, as a matter of law, must be dismissed.
I move for its dismissal on this basis.

Second, this disciplinary case lacks jurisdiction. I was confined beginning 19 September 2012, admittedly profiled and targeted for protected speech. After 217 days, the guilty findings were reversed. Now, the form says that it is overturned by legal for re-issue and rehearing of new conduct reports, and it says that the charges may be reheard. However, legally, there’s a problem in all of this. In fact, there are a few problems.
1. This is not a rehearing. I am not facing the same charges – two new charges have been added and one old charge was dropped. So, this is a new case with a new code number, not a rehearing of the old case.
2. I am not accused of the same conduct. The conduct previously was protected speech for which I cannot be legally punished. So, now, it appears that the State is proceeding as if I am not being punished for the reason the state has already admitted it is punishing me, but, instead the State tossed me in the hole last September for alleged rules violations I was going to commit 6 months later.
3. You can’t shove the poop back into the mule. We know why Angela Hunsinger ideologically profiled me. We know why I came to the hole. We know why I was subjected to torture where two men have since died. It was admitted in the first conduct report. Ideology. Jpay. Anarchist. So now, with a new conduct report and new charges and new allegations of new misconduct, we have an effort to shove the poop back into the donkey. We’re going to pretend this ordeal did not happen for the reason it happened, and we’re going to try to put a legally-acceptable excuse on the legally unacceptable events that have already happened and are now ongoing. This is illegal. It is continued free speech persecution under a pretty mask.

On that basis, I move for the dismissal of the conduct report.

Third, there is a jurisdictional problem in this case. MANCI had the legal authority to open and photocopy my outgoing mail for a 21-day investigation. That means MANCI had until 10 October 2012 to investigate my outgoing mail. Charging officials allege that the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation requested that they open and photocopy my mail for the extended period giving rise to this conduct report.
I don’t know if that’s true. Neither do you. Such a written request is not mentioned in the conduct report, and if such requests did exist, they would necessarily have to be mentioned in the conduct report, pursuant to Policy 56-DSC-01 (VI)(1)(b), requesting all relevant facts. I would assert that documents establishing jurisdictional authority are relevant facts.
Having said that, even if such documentary requests exist, the charging officials are without jurisdiction to bring these charged rules violations. Assuming the FBI requested my photocopied mail that does not justify this disciplinary process. The FBI has power to investigate federal crimes. Ms Hunsinger and Mr Clark can by all means, photocopy my mail and turn it over to Special Agent in charge, C. Frank Figliuzzi can consider federal charges; the US attorney can bring an indictment. Neither of these people are Special Agent Figliuzzi. This is NOT a federal court.
Likewise, if Lt RS Chapman of the Ohio State Highway Patrol requested a mountain of my mail, he is entitled to it. He can review it for violations of state law. If he find violations of state law, he can urge the Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to bring state charges in an indictment. But this is not an indictment with state charges.
If Special Agent Figliuzzi cannot find federal charges, then he can take my photocopied mail over which he has jurisdiction, and he can dispose of it. If Lt Chapman cannot find state charges, then he can take his copy of my photocopied mail, and he can dispose of it. But legally, neither of them, obtaining my outgoing and incoming correspondence under the justification of investigating state and federal crimes, can hand those materials to prison authorities in order to bring disciplinary charges based upon materials that prison authorities had no authority to obtain directly.

On that basis, I move that my conduct report be redacted to remove all references to any correspondence from me that was sent after the institution’s investigation expired on 10 October, 2012. And I move for dismissal of all charged rule violations that have their basis in my outgoing correspondence after 10 October 2012. To use that correspondence is to continue the lawless exceptionalism that has been the hallmark of this case from the start.

As a fourth and final matter before addressing the facts, this conduct report is beyond the time limits allowed by local policy 3D 011 (vI(J)(3)(b), requiring an RIB hearing to be held within seven business days following the date I was placed in security control for other than investigative reasons. That means that, by the mandatory timelines, you had seven business days from Oct 10, 2012. That period elapsed on 19 October, 2012. You are now [at the time of the hearing] 200 days late. Assuming an argument that this is a re-hearing, I would remind you that it is not. It is a distinct, new case number with new charges and a totally new infrastructure of fact. It is not a re-hearing of MANCI-12-007219. It is not a re-hearing of those charges. It is not a re-hearing of those charged instances of alleged misconduct. This new conduct report, stating the date of offense of 19 September, 2012 at 4:00 PM had to be heard months ago pursuant to the Ohio Administrative Code, DRC policy, and local policy.

On that basis, I move for the conduct report’s dismissal.

Should I continue with the facts of the case, or permit you to address those legal arguments first? If you want, I’ll continue w/ the facts. I’ll try to be brief and thorough.

In 2009 I came to MANCI. Model prisoner- no fights, no major misconduct, locked up since 1991. No gang activity. But right after I got here, Ms Hunsinger put me on the gang list, absent the requisite gang ticket, because a website called featured my published work.

August 2012, JPAY policy happened and I wrote an article for saying it’s identity theft to take 750,000 visitors information without their consent and give it to Jpay. Shortly after that, someone- not a prisoner- posted 12 Monkeys manuals on the internet. Staff printed them off. In a prison where 3A + 3B prisoners don’t mingle, staff had to be involved to get hundreds of copies to every block.

I was recommended for medium on 12 September. I had to get to Marion for programs to get a parole in 2016. I’ll have 25 years in.

According to Shawn Marshall, it was about that time he was called to Security Threat Group (STG) office. Marshall was in 3A with me. Marshall says he was given 12 Monkey Manuals to plant in my cell. He didn’t do it. When STG searched my cell for nearly 2 hours on 19 September, all they found was a rough draft of my Jpay article and my typewriter. I was one of 3 prisoners searched that day, I later learned. I had NO 12 Monkeys materials but I was removed from population and placed in a torture cell on torture cell row where two men have since died.

Les Dillon, in 1B, was found with a mountain of 12 Monkeys materials. He was left in population. Does that sound like a 12 Monkey investigation?

I was held incommunicado in conditions the CIA Kubark manual calls “the simple torture situation,” I left there sleep-deprived and hallucinating. In the last 230-some days, decades-long procedures for segregation changed to make conditions intolerable, in at least 13 ways, while I’ve lost over 50 pounds. In slow starvation.

The investigation ended 10 October, 2012 and I went to RIB 24 October, charged with rules 15, 17, and 56, based on my ideology and published work. Jpay, anarchism. Ms Hunsinger testified that I engaged in none of the 12 Monkeys promoted activities, I played no role in their materials, and I engaged in no criminal activity. I was found guilty and slated for supermax as a CREATOR of the Army of the 12 Monkeys. I was days away from transfer.

My attorney presented proof of my innocence, including the domains where 12 Monkeys materials are on the internet- where I can’t put them, evidence Ms Hunsinger conceded. He proved Ms Hunsinger misrepresented my writings. amassed a groundswell of support from Justice Watch to Amnesty International; National Religious Campaign Against Torture to claims before the OAS that may set a precedent in international law. I’m recognized as a political prisoner and as a prisoner of conscience, and I’ve now been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The DRC hates

On passover, the day that the god of Abraham, Itzak, and Yisrael liberated slaves from Egypt, I learned this injustice was reversed. Unfortunately, a new injustice is renewed with all the legal deficiencies I raised already. Those claims notwithstanding, the new conduct report cites 8 instances of conduct I will address briefly [Sean re-iterates the arguments found here].

So, to recap, here are eight reasons you’re supposed to give the parole board justification to make me die in prison as a terrorist rather than going to medium to get programs and get a parole before my elderly parents die:

1. Dillon wrote a story investigators misrepresent in 7 ways.
2. Dzelajilija wrote a letter that doesn’t implicate me in anything.
3. Marshall believed Ms Hunsinger just like everyone else does so he sent me a coded message.
4. I discovered web addresses that destroyed the first flimsy case they brought.
5. I don’t have 12 Monkey manuals on a site I don’t own.
6. I insulted the 12 Monkeys by suggesting a friend should profiteer and sell t-shirts.
7. Other people own a site that doesn’t feature an idea I proposed, that doesn’t work like investigators describe it.
8. One of Ms Hunsinger’s personalities doesn’t know the other one already exonerated me of disseminating 12 Monkey materials on the compound.

PSALM 118:10-12.
His word does not return to him void.

Further analysis of BLAST!Blog accusations (#7) sent in a second letter, mailed May 19th…

This is BLAST!Blog in a nutshell: I proposed a feature at which is mastered outside the US on a server OUTSIDE the US. What I wrote was a proposal. It was titled: Proposal. As I have no internet access, I CANNOT post anything anywhere nor create a feature on a site. Also, I don’t own Really, I don’t even know who does.
So, before we go into the CONTENT of my BLAST!Blog proposal, let’s be clear about the process. I was ONLY writing a proposal and sending it to others who may or may not implement the proposed idea. This means what we’re dealing with in the prison disciplinary process is NOT whether or not BLAST!Blog would be a threat to security. No. What we’re dealing with is the question of whether it constitutes a threat to security if I communicate an idea for a website to my friends and my counsel in the free world. We’re ONLY dealing with MY SPEECH, my transmission of a proposed idea. When my mail left here and went to point B, did that endanger the security of the institution?
Again, before we get to CONTENT of BLAST!Blog, whatever it is, it’s the argument of fascists that I can put words on paper and if they arrive in the free world, the ODRC might fall apart. NOT if you ACT on those words. Just if YOU read them.
Yes. I have magic powers.
They can’t argue anything else. If they argue that it’s not what I wrote, but that it’s IF you act on it, then they have switched the focus- it would become YOUR conduct that is a potential threat. They can’t punish me for that. So, legally speaking, they are locked in on an arugement that MY COMMUNICATION OF WORDS ON PAPER- in the form of the BLAST!Blog proposal- THREATENED SECURITY.
Now, the CONTENT of what I wrote.
BLAST!Blog, as I proposed it, would be a feature. It would have a disclaimer against violence, property damage and harrassment. A disclaimer written and/or approved by counsel. After the disclaimer, mandated-acknowledgement disclaimer, you go to BLAST!Blog proper. BLAST!Blog would have a listing of fascists and their crimes against humanity. It would have their names- just like the DRC website. It would have their photo, just like the DRC website. It would have a description of their crimes, just like the DRC website has for 50,000 convicted felons.
By the BLAST!Blog proposal, THAT IS ALL THE INFORMATION THAT SEANSWAIN.ORG WOULD POST. Nothing more. Neither BLAST!Blog, nor would post ANY personal information of anyone. Period.
Hunsinger alleges that BLAST!Blog would feature home addresses, phone #s, etc of DRC employees to promote harassment, violence and property damage. Again, she MADE THAT UP. See a pattern? Where evidence does not exist, she invents it.
Now, BLAST!Blog would also feature message boards. Visitors would post comments on them. Legally, IS NOT responsible for the contents of anonymous visitor postings. No telling what might be posted. No telling if anything would be posted.
So the legal question is, is the content of my BLAST!Blog proposal, a proposal to create a feature that has no more information than the DRC website, with a disclaimer against violence, so fucking dangerous that MY WRITING IT and my TRANSMISSION OF IT TO FREE WORLD PEOPLE constitutes a threat to the safety and security of the DRC?
Get the fuck out of here.
For legal purposes, let’s compare. Another case. Oregon- I think. People posted a page at freepress (?) and on the page they featured HOME ADDRESSES of scumbag cops. As far as I know, no disclaimer. The federal court said their postings were PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. Now, let’s consider. In Oregon, we’re dealing with cops, not guards. We’re dealing with cops in the community among people who can visit the site. Prisoners can’t visit a site. In Oregon, we’re not dealing with a messageboard, but direct posting of home addresses. In Oregon, we’re not dealing with- as far as I know- a mandatory-acknowledgement disclaimer. So, in Oregon, the SPEECH under review by the court was, in every respect, more serious and more dangerous than anything I proposed. Also in that case, they didn’t propose doing it; they did it.
Okay, so I’m going to MAX for suggesting that you engage in PROTECTED SPEECH???
How could it be that SUGGESTING that you engage in PROTECTED SPEECH would constitute a threat to the prison’s security???
I don’t care what these fuckweasels say, but there no conceivable way anybody can legally argue that merely suggesting you do something the federal courts say you have a right to do could be a danger to prison security.
Now, check it out. Blackjack wrote a letter telling people NOT to create a website. That’s a security threat. He’s going to MAX. I wrote a letter telling people TO build a site. That’s a security threat. I’m going to MAX. So, if you say DO it, you go to max; if you say NOT to do it, you got to MAX. So, if you mention the internet, you’re a security threat???
Speaking of security threat- you recall these are the same shitheads who said Walden is a treat to security, right? We’re talking about credibility here. They have none.
Also, in the first conduct report, remember my writings were “advocating property damage and violence.” Then in my 5B Placement, no less than 4 times they assert that I advocate “property damage and violence.” Then, in a kite that conceivably says NOTHING threatening, they allege that I “threaten bodily harm”- violence. Now, the re-tread case, they again allege that I promote “property damage and potential violence.”
Property damage property damage property damage, violence violence violence. It matters not what I write or what I say, it’s advocacy of property damage and violence. Provably, that’s got nothing to do with reality. It has to do with their psychopathology. They are provably delusional. Violence violence violence property damage property damage property damage.
You do realize, in 22+ years locked up, I’ve had ZERO fights. No violence in 22+ years. I took a vow of non-violence in 1995. I was recognized personally- not making this up- by ROSA PARKS for my dedication to nonviolence. SHE nominated my placement on the Wall of Tolerance- she PERSONALLY NOMINATED ME- for my work toward a peaceful, nonviolent world.
No fights. 22+ years. In prison.
Violence violence violence. Property damage property damage property damage. Really??
I’ve been terrorized. I’m in the custody of terrorists who say a man who took and kept a vow of nonviolence is violent. I was tortured. Starved. Subjected to purposeless, mindless trauma.