You would think that people who are so practiced in criminal shenanigans would sooner or later get good at it.
Apparently not.
With a civil action pending against them, prison officials repeatedly and provably delayed the processing of Sean Swain’s outgoing legal mail– not just for a day or two, but for a whole week –while Sean’s non-legal mail, SOMETIMES MAILED THE VERY SAME DAY, was processed without any delay at all. The only explanation is that prison officials specifically sought to disrupt Sean’s communications to the Court… right after blocking his effort to transmit an open letter attempting to persuade whomever posted Judge Benita Pearson’s home address online to delete the posting.
Sean suggests that prison officials obstructed his mail to an effort to prevent him from potentially revealing the real source of that anonymous posting: Prison officials.
“They wanted to get a liberal democrat removed from the case so they threw Judge Pearson under the bus,” Sean said. “And they didn’t know how much I know. So, to avoid exposure, they delayed and illegally steamed open my mail to federal court– to see what I was saying.”
At the same time, as Sean can prove, his non-legal mail was processed without delay, shown by the prison’s own documents.
“Non-legal mail took one day to process. Legal mail to court mailed the same day took eight,” Swain said. “To quote Dylan, ‘It don’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'”
To get investigators to search the hard drives of prison officials’ home computers for evidence that they anonymously posted Judge Pearson’s address, contact the FBI:
Cleveland Field Office: (216) 522-1400
Columbus Field Office: (614) 224-1183

The content of Sean Swain’s sworn statement sent to the federal court follows…

SWORN STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF
I, Sean Swain, being duly sworn according to law, hereby depose to state:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned case and I am competent to testify to the facts related herein, to which I have direct knowledge.
2. On 11 June 2015 and again on 5 July 2015, during a period when my communications mediums were irregularly blocked and I was unaware if my regular mail was leaving the prison, I fashioned sworn statements for mailing to the U.S. District Court. Those mailings, due to the bulk of pages, required additional postage.
3. As per practice, I attached a DRC Form 1004 to those mailings in order to consent to removal of funds from my account to pay for the additional postage.
4. I attach hereto copies of DRC Form 1004. These are marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and D. These documents are true and accurate copies of the originals.
5. On 6 June 2015, I submitted two DRC Form 1004s for extra postage. Those documents are Exhibit A, attached. As indicated by the mailroom stamp in the bottom right corners of those forms, those items of mail were processed on 9 June 2015, a delay of just three days.
6. Exhibit B is a copy of my DRC 1004 for postage to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court. It was submitted as indicated on 11 June 2015 and was processed according to the mailroom stamp on 19 June 2015, a delay of eight days. It therefore took the mailroom five additional days to process legal mail than it took to process non-legal mail which was mailed in the same general period of time.
7. On 5 July 2015, the same date that I submitted my second mailing to the U.S. District Court, I submitted non-legal mail to Ben Turk and others. The non-legal mailings’ DRC 1004s appear as Exhibit C. As indicated by the mailroom stamp on those forms mailings were processed the following day, 6 July 2015.
8. Exhibit D is the DRC 1004 for the legal mail to the U.S. District Court. It was submitted 5 July 2015 and was not processed until 13 July 2015, eight days later. It took the Southern Ohio Correctional Institution mailroom an additional week to process legal mail than it took to process non-legal mail submitted the same day.
9. It would seem, given the inexplicable and specific harassment of legal mail, I could faster convey my communications to the Court if I directed them to my friend in France and had her re-mail my communications to the Court in Cleveland than if I mail legal mail to the Court directly.
10. I am reasonably certain that defendants, with a straight face, will assert that this is not harassment.
I sign this declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746.

Sean Swain, Plaintif