Category Archives: A12M frame up

Shawn Marshall Reading Materials Request

A12M SOCFShawn Marshall, who was pulled into the special manglement unit shortly after Sean, Dillon and Blackjack last September on accusations of participating in the A12M, has been transferred to Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.

He has written us looking for solidarity and reading materials. Please send him some rad stuff.

Shawn Marshall 461-448
P. O. Box 45699
1724 St. Rt. 728
Lucasville, Ohio 45699

Violence! Violence! Violence!

An open letter to ODRC Legal Counsel Trevor Matthew Clark, Esquire, on his favorite topic–my unapologetic advocacy of political violence (written in the hopes of inspiring others to adopt my position and engage in revolutionary action).

Dear Trevor:

In the interests of full transparency, I’d like to begin this letter by making my aims clear. I advocate political violence. I contend that political violence is absolutely necessary for the success of a revolutionary project, and I defend its morality as well as its practicality. I write this in the admitted hope that my reasonable and articulate arguments will reach rational people who will embrace the position I advocate, and that theywill take back the future from oppressors and tyrants by engaging in effective revolutionary action.

I present all of this as a letter to you for a few reasons. First, your written positions related to my prison disciplinary situation provide a pretty good representation of the State’s position, or at least can be used for extrapolating authority’s position on political violence. Second, you are an attorney, which makes you an expert at law and at argument, so if and when I can dispose of your stated positions and reduce your claims to nonsense, that will then demonstrate the superiority of my position to yours, and will prove pretty conclusively that political violence makes sense. And third, I know that once this is posted, given your emotional instability, the presence of this letter online will drive you completely bonkers for the rest of your life–which I will find personally satisfying, given your role in the State’s efforts to destroy my life; as listening to my disciplinary proceedings made you feel like “shooting [your]self in the face,” I imagine this will too. By all means, do not let me dissuade you.

I think that takes care of the disclosure ad transparency, so we should proceed to the topic of political violence. Typically, I will predicate a work like this with a few relevant quotes. I think that approach appropriate here.

So we begin.

“We are anarchists specifically because we do not water down our critique of social ills. We seek to strike the system at its roots.” –Crimethink, After the Crest III:Barcelona at Low Tide

“The revolutionary project of anarchists is to struggle along with the exploited and push them to rebel against all abuse and repression, so also against prison. What moves them is a desire for a better world, a better life with dignity ad ethic, where economy and politics have been destroyed. There can be no place for prison in that world”
“That is why anarchists scare power.”
“That is why they are locked up in prison.” –Alfredo Bonanno, “Introductory Note,” Locked Up

“Men [sic] will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last pope.” –Denis Diderot

Defining “Political Violence”

What is violence? No one can reasonably adopt a position on something before we define what it is. My dictionary gives five definitions, but the first one, I think, is more than adequate for our purposes here: “physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury.” By this definition, “violence” would include property damage and sabotage, though most purists would object to this definition and assert that “violence” is only “violence” when directed at living beings. I’m inclined to accept the definition that property damage is also violence because that’s more consistent with the position you’ve put forward on behalf of the State when you argued that I advocated violence against “people,” “destruction of property,” and “harassment,” and I would prefer not to quibble over the smaller details. So, for our purposes, we can accept that property damage is violence.

I think it’s important, though, that we point out that the definition of violence doesn’t include any qualifiers. What I mean is, by our definition, it matters not whether I’m punching you in the face or whether you are punching me in the face; a punch in the face is “physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse or injury,” no matter who the actor is. Violence is violence.

I know, that’s kind of self-evident as far as observations go. Kind of a no-brainer. I just wanted to point it out though, for future reference, for when we get to the point where you want to shoot yourself in the face.

But we don’t want to talk about just any violence. Interpersonal violence isn’t our topic. I don’t think either one of us is, for instance, advocating “domestic violence.” The question before us is whether or not we advocate political violence. Again we consult a dictionary and the first definition for “political” is, “of or relating to the affairs of government, politics, or the state.” I think that’s workable for the definition of “political.” If we put that together with our definition of violence, we create our working definition of political violence: “Physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury…of or related to the affairs of government, politics, or the state.”

I suppose we could go further and ask what the State is, particularly in this age where the State is so inextricably linked with the management of the economy and in the affairs of large corporations, but that’s really a whole other discussion unto itself, isn’t it? Our topic here is already ambitious enough, I think. So we can forego the question of, “What is the State?,” at least for purposes of identity, and we’ll suffice to say that the State is “the government,” the incorporated entity that exercises its assumed powers and authority, by and through its agents–like you. You qualify as an agent of the State.

Belief in Political Violence, Part I

Having defined political violence, we now address the question of whether or not I “believe in it.” If by “believe in it” we mean, “do I believe that political violence is real, then I would have to say, no, I do not believe in political violence. I know that political violence is real.

Political violence–“physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury…of or related to the affairs of government, politics, or the state”–is a fact of reality. It is happening at all times. It is ubiquitous.

The reality of political violence cannot rationally be questioned.

Belief in Political Violence, Part II

If by “belief in political violence” you mean to ask, “Do I believe political violence is practical?,” I would again have to answer, no. I do not believe that political violence is practical. I know that it is.

The reason I know political violence is practical is, I took a sociology class with Ashland University. I read the textbook. In it, the writers pointed out that movements like the Irish Republican Army that employed violence achieved at least partial success an overwhelming majority of the time, as opposed to strictly nonviolent movements where just the opposite held true.

So, we can say objectively and without a doubt that, as a practical matter, political violence works.

And, I think I need to point out here, I’m not yet making an argument for political violence. Nothing so far related to how I “feel” about political violence or whether I “like” political violence or not. Political violence is real and it works, however we “feel” about it, the same way that the planet is round, gravity persists, and the earth goes around the sun, all independent of the question of whether we “believe” in the planet’s roundness, or gravity’s legitimacy, or the earth’s trajectory.

Gravity does not seek our consent. Neither does the efficacy of political violence.

Belief in Political Violence, Part III

If you ask, “Do you believe in political violence?” and by “believe in” you mean, “Do you think political violence should be employed?” I would answer with an emphatic yes. But if you were being honest, Trevor, you would also answer with an emphatic yes. You accept political violence as moral and legitimate, and I can prove it to you.

You work as ODRC Counsel–as an attorney for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The ODRC is an agency of the State of Ohio, established by the Ohio Constitution of 1803. Ohio is the 17th state of the United States; the United States gained its independence from the British crown with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1787.

By calling yourself “ORDC Counsel,” you are implicitly stipulating to the truth of all of those facts. You have to be. If any one of those statements above are untrue, you aren’t ODRC Counsel. You’re just a dude in skinny jeans with a lot of college debt and the FBI on speed-dial. If the ODRC is not an agency of the State of Ohio, then you have no claim to exercise authority on behalf of the State. If the Treaty of Paris didn’t provide the United States independence from the British crown, then the United States is not a sovereign nation, Ohio isn’t part of its confederation, and Ohio is not a state. Again, that leaves you in your skinny jeans chatting with the fascists and wondering how you’ll pay off all that college debt since you don’t have a job.

So, in Trevor Clark’s world, the Treaty of Paris is valid. The revolutionaries in the colonies who engaged in open, violent rebellion against the rightful authorities–rightful authorities under existing international law–were not criminals, traitors, offenders against the peace and dignity of the British crown, but were instead signatories to a treaty, the proper representatives of a nation whose independence was gained through the means of political violence.

You’re an attorney, Trevor. Do you practice British law in British courts? Are you a member of the British bar? When you introduced yourself to me on 27 March 2013, did you refer to yourself as Counsel for the British Crown?

I guess that means you accept the legitimacy of the political violence employed by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and the rest. I guess that means that you, like every other U.S. citizen, have to concede and stipulate to the acceptance of political violence and its validity.

So much for your categorical rejection of political violence, huh?

This is an important point because it proves that you and I have more in common in our thinking than we have uncommon. We both know that political violence exists. We both know that, as a practical matter, it works. And we both accept that recourse to political violence is legitimate. We only argue, potentially, over the questions of when political violence should be employed, by whom, to what end, and against whom.

So let’s shift gears for a moment. Let’s stop talking about my advocacy of political violence and start talking about yours.

Back to our Definition of “Political Violence”

You’ll recall that earlier I made the point that “violence” as it is defined, has no qualifiers, that it matters not whether I’m punching you in the face or whether you are punching me in the face. A punch in the face is violence no matter who the actor is. Violence is violence. And so we get to the point I foreshadowed, where you want to shoot yourself in the face.

On 19 September 2012, without any justification at all–and admittedly so, because everything I was accused of related to my apprehension was dismissed–you, the State, removed me from the prison population. You put me in cuffs. You “exerted” “physical force…so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury,” forcibly taking me into custody and putting me in a torture cell for days. That’s violence. And it’s violence “related to the affairs of…the state,” as it’s violence employed by the State in the (mis)management of its affairs. I was then subjected to conditions that the CIA described as “the simple torture situation” in its KUBARK Counterintelligence and Interrogation Manual, an insidious how-to manual for torturers and state-terrorists like yourself.

It was also on 19 September 2012 that you, the State, “seized” my typewriter and then destroyed it in retaliation for me calling the ODRC director a “sock puppet” for the JPay corporation. You’ll recall, by our definition, when you “exert” “physical force…so as to cause damage…,” that’s violence. And in this case, the violence, destroying my typewriter, is directly “related to the affairs of…the State,” as “the State” is the entity destroying my typewriter for its own political agenda.

See the problem you have here, Trevor? It’s very, very difficult to hear your indignant and self-righteous condemnations of “political violence” because every time you try to speak, more and more corpses fall out of the mass grave we know as your mouth.

But while we’re on the topic, let’s also analyze the larger context of your political violence. In my own case, I’ve been held without a legitimate legal justification according to your own laws, for twenty-three years. That means I’m not a prisoner; I’m a kidnap victim.1

Kidnapping is a violent crime, Trevor. Violence. State violence, and State violence is, de facto, political violence.

When you continually employ political violence against someone, it seems more than a little bit irrational and hypocritical for you to assert that the victims of your political violence do not so much as have the right to “advocate” its use against you.

And, of course, the ultimate irony is, if you had not abducted me and tortured me and mounted an all-out assault on every aspect of my life in flagrant violation of your own written laws (not that anyone, particularly you, pays any attention to those), I never would have been provoked to “advocate” a politically-violent response.

You will recall that you wrote to my attorneys, “The types of violence and intimidation that are advocated for [sic] in his writings fall clearly within the legal exceptions to that right [of free speech].2 ODRC will not tolerate threats, harassment and attempts at intimidation.” That’s what you wrote.

See your problem? If the State will not tolerate “threats,” perhaps the State should get out of the “threat” business. If the State won’t tolerate “harassment,” whatever that means, perhaps it should cease its torture and state-terror operations. If the State won’t tolerate “intimidation,” maybe it should stop using its machinery of violence to silence, neutralize, and destroy its critics, whistleblowers, and political opponents.

Just an idea. Otherwise, if the State is going to be in the threat, harassment and intimidation business, as it clearly is now, then the State is going to be turning a lot of people into enemies, the same way you have made a lifelong enemy of me, and you will soon have to confront thousands of Sean Swains…all of us recognizing that we have no other recourse but political violence. Not all of us can easily be tucked away at super-duper-uber-mega-ultramax.

You’re got something like twelve million people in Ohio. And lots and lots of guns.

I read somewhere that estimated gun ownership in the U.S. is more than 200 million. That’s a lot of guns. If you divide that evenly among all 50 states, which is unrealistic since only 12 people live in Montana, the people of Ohio alone have at least 4 million guns. That’s a gun for every third person.

I suppose for the remainder of this, I can address my arguments directly to those people. The literary device of directing my arguments to you has served its purpose. So, by all means, don’t let me hold you from any important business. Feel free to shoot yourself in the face at any time.

12 million People, 4 million guns, and 1 Common Enemy Subjecting Everyone to Political Violence…Arrogantly Assuming We Won’t Do Something About It…

The Trevor Clarks who run the State of Ohio will not tolerate your “threats” or “harassment” or “intimidation.” They will, however, take your money without your consent to pay their own salaries. They tax you, supposedly for your own good. Supposedly to provide you “services,” like roads, schools, and protection.

But you’re reasonable. You’d voluntarily pay for services. You voluntarily pay for services every day. If the State really offered services, you would gladly pay for the value of those services.

The State doesn’t give you that option. Instead, the State “exerts” “force” to fund “the affairs of government,” to your loss, to your “injury.” The State engages in political violence in your every transaction. The State knows that reasonable people like you would never pay outrageous sums for shoddy services, and so it resorts to political violence to keep itself going, not for your own good, but at your expense.

The Trevor Clarks who steal your money from you make a good salary. You pay them generously, not for roads, schools, and protections, but for chuck-holes, illiteracy, and political repression. You pay for the government hackers who are reading your e-mails and listening in on your phone calls. You pay for the miseducation system that convinces a new generation that they cannot possibly handle ruling themselves, that they need the government’s “services” of chuck-holes, illiteracy, and political repression. You pay for the Apache attack helicopters the government buys to “protect” you…and then points the helicopter at you.

The State will not tolerate your “threats” or “harassment” or “intimidation.” The Trevor Clarks have spoken. You 12 million people with at least 4 million guns will do what you are told and you will pay the bill…or else.

Does that sound like “freedom”? I could be wrong, but I think real freedom doesn’t involve your government constantly employing political violence against you and intimidating you if you start talking about freedom.

Not that it matters because we have no duty to defer to the documents of the Trevor Clarks who are stickingit to us, but the Ohio Constitution expressly provides that we have the “right” to “abolish” the government. Article I, Section 2. We can do it whenever we “deem it necessary.”

I don’t know about you, but I deem it necessary. I don’t want to die at super-duper-uber-mega-ultra-max because I defended my own life and then told the truth about the prison directors’ crimes. And, more importantly, I don’t want others to die for what they believe, locked away or shot by agents of an irrational State.3 So, that means the State has to go.

We deserve better.

Something to consider. There’s us… There’s them…

We have 12 million people and at least 4 million guns.

Any questions?

Just a quick reminder to any remaining pacifists out there–your choice is not between “violence” or “peace.” If it was, we would all choose peace. But if we do not choose to engage in violence, that does not create a situation of peace; that creates a situation of unilateral violence where the State continues to “exert” its “force” to your “injury.” So, an absence of action, on your part, facilitates State violence. In fact, the longer you refrain from acting, the more lives are devastated. Objectively, anyone who is really, truly for peace will struggle–by any means necessary— to destroy the State completely and as quickly as possible so that the principle cause of State violence will cease and we will then finally have the option of choosing peace.

You can’t choose “peace” with a loaded shotgun in your face. Once you address the issue of that loaded shotgun in your face, you have the option of choosing peace.

And personally, I cannot wait to choose peace.

The State and its political violence are an obstacle to that peace. Let’s remove it. Completely. Immediately.

As someone else who confronted terrorists at the controls once said, “Let’s roll.”

We own the future.

It starts now…if only we have the will.

Freedom or Death,

Sean Swain
Ideological Prisoner
Ohio State Penitentiary
Youngstown, Ohio

End Notes

1. I was kidnapped by the State in 1991 after defending my own life in my own home. Erie County Case No. 91-CR-253. My false conviction was reversed, Sixth District Case No. E-91-80. On remand, the trial court refused to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals. I remain imprisoned for 23 years, still awaiting the fair trial ordered in 1993. To avoid having to recognize my innocence and the illegality of my captivity, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas simply refuses to file anything I present.

2. You have asserted that the First Amendment does not protect speech that “advocates violence.” If that’s the case, it was illegal to support the bombing of Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan. Bombs are violence, Trevor. It would also be illegal to advocate the executions of the Lucasville Uprising leaders.

Killing people is violence, Trevor.

So, clearly, the question of whether speech advocates or does not advocate violence is perfectly irrelevant to whether it enjoys First Amendment protections. In fact, if you read all of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that delineate prisoner free speech rights, the question of “advocating violence” is no part of the calculus. The question isn’t related to content, but to the forum and the purpose–in this case, a public forum, and the purpose is political speech; so, the speech in question is afforded the most protection according to your highest court’s decisions. See, Jones v. NCPLU, 433 US119 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 US 817 (1974; Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 US 401 (1989); Turner v. Safley, 482 US 78 (1987); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396 (1974; and Simon & Schuster Inc v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, et. al, 502 US 105 (1991). Simon & Schuster stands for the proposition that the State cannot create a “disincentive” for prisoner speech in a public forum…like, say, sending me to super-duper-uber-mega-ultra-max for my communicated ideas to a website.

3. The Cleveland Police reserve the right to shoot unarmed people 137 times. “To Protect and Serve” looks a lot like “To Enslave and Oppress.”

4. Some excellent resources:

Computer Security:

Special Training:

Ohio Militia:

I have no idea about the politics of any of these groups, but I suspect they are armed. That’s a start. Whatever your politics, they can teach you how to shoot. That’s a start.

Or, apart from firearms, you could descend on the Ohio Statehouse in ski masks with cans of gasoline and books of matches. That’s a start too.

Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution affirms your right to do it.


Sean Swain is a prisoner in Ohio State penitentiary and a regular contributor to Fubar. He does not have computer access and cannot receive email. Sean’s website is maintained by his supporters.

Sean’s address is:

Sean Swain 243205
Ohio State Penitentiary
878 Coitsville-Hubbard Rd.
Youngstown OH 44505

Days of Teargas, Blood + Vomit

How prisoners overwhelmed fascist forces in the July 4th rebellion at ManCI. A participant’s account from inside the special manglement unit. (Follow up to this post.)


Ghandi would not approve.

It’s 11 July 13, 8 days since my last dispatch when Blackjack was strapping the plastic lunch tray to his arm. Since then, its’ been a rough-and-tumble bucket-o-blood back here in the Special Manglement Unit of Mansfield Corruptional Institution. Backjack’s missing 3 teeth (that he really doesn’t use much back here anyway) and my stomach injuries had me puking for a time (no blood, a good sign), but as of today, neither of us are leaking fluids and the fascist fuckweasels have now moved us to the veritable suburbs of the SMU.

This is the whole story, and most of it is true.

July 4 began with emergency lockdown, the fascists all hopped up on adrenaline, coffee, and the news of the escape that happened the previous night. Turns out, a prisoner escaped the old-fashioned way. He leaned a steel ladder against the fence and left. No shit.

But as with any other situation where popular forces strike a successful blow against the fuckweasel control system, those of us still locked in the showbox take the full brunt of it. Breakfast was shit and there was no recreation. So even before Warden Terry Tibbals, a.k.a, BLACK LIGHTNING, arrived at his office with his bag of donuts and cup of decaf, all hell had already broke loose in the Special Manglement Unit.

Forty steel doors banging, busted sprinkler heads pounding thousands of gallons of rusty water down the stairs and cascading over the top range, the nazis jacking cans of pepper spray and running for the exit.

Fuck them. It’s not like they planned to have a barbecue anyway.

So, if you’ve been locked in the shoebox for any length of time, you know what’s coming. A captain or a major will soon be on-station to announce his own importance, only to find every fucking cell-door window blocked and barricaded, whereupon he will slosh with wet socks and shoes back to an office to call in the Extraction Team- a crew of genetic oddities on brain-entrancing drugs, clad in jackboots and helmets, shields and flak vests. Their whole reason to exist is to crush human skulls and reckless abandon, cell-to-cell, breaking bones and spirits, but from the rumbling of the steel doors, we knew they’d better get some chips and beer because they were gonna be there a while.
In SMU4B, Blackjack and I occupied the cell closest to the entrance so by dumb luck and a twist of fate, we were the front line of the very first battle, ground zero in the struggle between the rebellion and the goddamn stormtroopers goose-stepping in mechanical unison, hopped up on their innate hatred of humanity and the echoes of unhappy childhoods.

It would be seven on two, close quarters blind fighting, the hierarch machine coming to exterminate the anarchist tendency once and for all, and for our part, the possibility that we would fight and die, not for some inglorious cause, but driven by the simple sad reality that it’s better to fight and perhaps die than to live as slaves.

Blackjack and I took a quick inventory and came up with an impromptu battle plan. They might kill us, might pound us to death, but they were going to know we were here. The least we could do on the way out, with the snapping of bones and growls of rage, is scar these fascist fuckweasels for life so they wake up from sweaty nightmares decades from now and realize that yet against they’ve shit the bd, screaming my name, “SWAIN!”, since no one know who to pronounce Blackjack’s (Blackjack included).



We know how it goes down. The Extraction Team opens the food slot and sprays an industrial sized can of outdoor-use-only pepper spray into the cell, a space the size of a bathroom, blasting some napalm-death that peels off skin and lights the lungs on fire. So we had to prepare for that. Then, they’d key the door and bullrush in, a phalanx behind riot shields and helmets, pounding ahead and crushing anything organic in their way. At least 7 of them, taming, breaking, punishing.

We had to stop that too.

The fascist fuckweasels had the latest technology for violence and brutality. We had a plastic bag, styrofoam cups, shampoo, toothpaste, sheets, blankets, a broom, socks, soap, 2 lunch trays, a razor blade and a stapler.

I don’t know where the fuck we got the stapler but it was brand new and had a full compliment of staples. We quickly concluded that the stapler, while convenient for all our segregation office needs, really proved quite irrelevant in a violent struggle for liberation against the forces of fuckweaselry. But all that other shit could kick a fucking dent in their machinery.

By the time those goose-stepping goons arrived, we were prepared- and the fascists would wish they could trade places with ATF agents crawling across the roof of some half-baked cult leader clinging to his bibles and guns in a podunk Texas town.

Welcome to Waco.




If you’re reading this on your I-phone in study hall, don’t try this at home.

Well, unless you really, really hate your parents.

Unable to see into the cell because the window in the cell door was blocked, the fascists opened the food slot, only to find a bed sheet hanging in front of the door. They still couldn’t see. On top of that, a blanket was wedged in the 4 inch frame of the outside window with a roll of toilet paper to block the light from the sun, making the cell pitch dark. The lead fuckweasel reached his hand into the food slot to grab the sheet and yank it down, only to take a bar of soap in a sock across the knuckles, quickly withdrawing his hand in a stream of obscenities.

I was a pitcher in little league. I can swing the shit out of a sock.

Angered, they went straight to the pepper-spray, letting loose with about a gallon of it. What they didn’t know is that we used a whole tube of toothpaste, minty fresh and approved by the American Dental Association, to adhere a plastic bag over the food slot. That bag caught every bit of the pepper spray and when I hit that bag with the soap-in-a-sock, it coughed its contents right back at the fuckweasels who unleashed it.

That sent them running and sprawling into the cascading toilet water, coughing and cussing with gallons of snot pouring down the flesh of their inflamed faces.

Cancel the family outing with the fireworks. You’re not gonna be feeling very festive.

So as they splashed in the toilet water and rinsed their faces, the door rattling reached a savage pitch and I knew the maniacs and wildmen behind those steel doors were chewing on the inside of their own mouths just to get the taste of blood.

And here’s an abject lesson for all the forces of fascism from the colonizer troops in the oil wars to the pigs firing rubber bullets into occupy encampments to the fuckweasel prison guards imposing the program at the hot end of a can of pepper spray: It’s all fun and games until someone loses and eye. And then it’s just FUN.

They formed up, fueled on rage and pain, a seething hate machine, and keyed the door. It swung wide open and they came in behind the shield, into the dark unknown. They still could not see because the sheet wasn’t fastened to the door; it didn’t move when the door moved. It remained in the doorway because we hung the sheet from a curtain rod we created out of styrofoam cups- a lot of styrofoam cups, stacked, like 50 of them, and then wedged them into the door frame. So when they came marching into the battle dome, they came in blind with the sheet draped in front of their faces.

They didn’t see the shampoo on the floor or the plastic cup lids floating in the shampoo. The shield-man’s jackboots slid on the cup lids and we went hydro-planing forward, shoved from behind by the six-man phalanx that followed.

Keep in mind, there’s a steel bunkbed 3 feet in from the door and it’s bolted to the floor, creating a bottle-neck, a 3 foot square killing-floor where the goons must come in single-file across shampoo and cup lids sliding under their feet, as they follow a blinded shield-man into a dark room, a sheet hanging in his face.

The shield-man didn’t see me in the shower, pulling the trip line tight. It caught his foot and he fell forward, his fuckweasel friends piling up behind him. Blackjack and I both began yelling, “I got him! I got him!” and “Stop resisting! Stop resisting!” giving the impression that the shield-man hadn’t fallen, but had instead tackled one of us.

I let go of the trip line and pulled the strip of sheet we had cut with the razor blade to hook into the sprinkler. I yanked it hard, unleashing thousands of gallons of black gunk fire suppressant pushed by tens of thousands of gallons of water. It was cold and disorienting and blinding, immediately blasting the pile of fuckweasels like a fire-hose from the ceiling.

That was Blackjack’s cue. They hadn’t seen him under the mattress on the top bunk. He sprang to his feet, all possible pepper-spray neutralized by the water filling the air, and with his half of the broomstick secured to his wrist with a strip of bedsheet (just in case he might drop it, he could recall it to his hand with a flick of the wrist) he leaped down from the top rack onto the fuckweasel heap, swinging like a madman. From the opposite side, out of the shower, I rushed into the maelstrom with my half of the broomstick tied to my wrist, and the soap-in-a-sock in my other hand screaming and snarling like a savage. In no time, we were behind the bewildered pile of drenched muscle and heavy equipment, and we bolted for the door.

Fuck everything else. If we got through the open cell door and out into the block, we faced one guard with a cell phone taking video and another guard with a handful of keys.

Yeah. Keys. The great equalizer. We had 2 primitive clubs in our fists, rags wrapped round our faces, and as many as 78 other comrades trapped behind steel doors – doors that could be opened with those keys. We only had to get out of the cell and lock the extraction team inside. But, as we reached the door, the fuckweasels outside the cell dropped everything and threw themselves against the closing door. Blackjack got his club wedged in to keep it from closing as he struggled against the door, I swung on the extraction team trying to regain their feet, and a helmet flew against the wall.

Unfortunately, there was no head inside it.

Maybe next time.

Blackjack thrust against the door and it gave, knocking down the guards on the outside, and we tumbled out of the cell and into the block, the rattling doors and cheers completely deafening. We crawled forward in the ice-cold water and gunk, clawing at the fallen guards, but before we gained purchase, the extraction team had us by the legs, dragging us back into the containment of the cell, our nails dragging on the concrete, one pig’s tasteful yet understated loafer still gripped in my left hand, pepper spray firing from every direction.

Strange, but they didn’t beat us to death. Sure, they got their random kicks and punches in as they held us down and confiscated our weapons, but then they bolted, leaving us sprawled, broken and bloody in a flood of toilet water on the concrete floor.

It was surprisingly comfortable, but I still had all my teeth. As amazing as this is, with all the damage the fascist fuckweasels have inflicted over the decades, the dentist tells me that my teeth are in fantastic shape. Blackjack’s missing 3 teeth. We couldn’t find them. And, even if we could, they had been floating in toilet water.

I pulled something in my abdomen that caused me to puke from the pain for a few days and we both have scorch marks from random pepper-spray blasts, but no broken bones. Our eyes are still firmly in their sockets, and neither of us appear to be leaking any vital fluids.

It took a long time for the fascists to regain control of SMU 4, as they faced inspired and courageous resistance in every fucking cell. The extraction team left the unit at the end of their shift dispirited and haunted by their experience.

Brave new world, shitbags. Brave new motherfuckin’ world.



We should be dead right now. I mean, several prisoners died here in Terry “Black Lightning” Tibbals’ mismanaged care for a hell of a lot less. Our survival seems a complete absurdity. But here we are.

The official story is that the video of events was lost when the pig dropped the cell phone in his effort to contain us in Cell 1019. I suspect that’s bullshit. I suspect that nobody wants to explain why we had a broomstick in the first place (general incompetence by the pigs on cell-cleaning day), or why the extraction team marched into a cell without visual capacity, or how to starved-out captives out-manoeuvred and out-fought their best fuckweasel fighting force. Whatever their motive, I’ve been told that these events didn’t happen… not the way they happened, anyway.



Four days later, we remained in a burned out shell of a cell, paint peeled from the walls, chunks of concrete missing out of the ceiling. So on July 8, as Pelican Bay revolutionaries undertook a monumental, historic hunger-strike, Blackjack and I were cuffed and escorted out to the outdoor recreation cage. No shit.

Beginning at 6:30 in the morning, we announced to the fuckweasel establishment that we were occupying the recreation cage and not giving it back until our demands were met. Inside the block, the rest of the SMU4 prisoners were again off the chain, rattling doors and flooding the unit. By dinner, they sent in a negotiator to use his “interpersonal communication” training to talk us out of the cage. When that failed, they called the extraction team… who simply did not show up.

Officer Miller, a shitbag of the highest order and a regular feature on SMU4 (who can be reached by calling ManCI and then dialing 806 and extension 6101), took a cell phone video of our demands for coming out of the recreation cage. When told all demands would be met, we surrendered, only to be dragged, handcuffed, back to our burned-out cave to find our food in the toilet and most of our property destroyed. Miller and Bradshaw had taken all of our soap, toilet paper and pens. As if we needed them.

Amazingly, the stapler we hid under the steel sink and toilet combo remained there, and was in perfect working condition.

Very durable.

Officer Miller threatened to put his dick and balls in our food, so- as a natural consequence, Blackjack and I went without food the entire day, right along with the heroes of Pelican Bay and the thousands of hunger strikers across the country and around the world. Miller’s threats sparked a night of mayhem, leading the Gestapo High Command to conclude that Blackjack and I are a dangerous influence, and they moved us out of that stagnant cave in SMU 4 to the veritable zombie suburbs of SMU2- a comfortable peaceful corner of the special manglement unit where we are surrounded by prisoners incapable of action if you lit their asses on fire and chased them with a super-soaker filled with gasoline. The mentality of the entire unit revolves around a betting ticket put out by a prisoner called Vegas, and daily discussions of professional sports events. No revolution here.

Though we’ve been put out to pasture, the situation has greatly improved. Our food portions are back to standard; the laundry service has resumed; the cells are clean and dry, without toilet water pouring from the ceiling; and Blackjack and I are now in a cell where we can sleep without steel doors 3 feet away, banging us awake every ½ hour.

Some kind of disciplinary action was taken against us, but we don’t know what it was since we refuse to answer any more conduct reports. When the officer who came to shackle us heard we refused to go, he asked, “Are we gonna have to do this the hard way?” We responded, “you better go ask the extraction team.” He left, never returned.

So, there’s a lesson to derive from all this: the only effective answer to state terror in any form is equal and opposite revolutionary violence. Plain and simple. It’s the only thing the fascist fuckweasels understand.

I think of the last 9 and a half months that Blackjack and I foolishly tried to go along with the fascist program, to appeal to reason, to employ the non-violent processes made available to us – while our captors reduced us to conditions that where inhumane and intolerable, starving us out. If only we had undertaken this path nine months earlier, and maintained it, we might be drinking martinis by an olympic-sized swimming pool right now.

A point Derrick Jensen made in Endgame applies here: more prisoners of the Nazi concentration camps survived by resisting than by going along with the program.*

So I think about the events of these last 8 days and consider how the world would be different if this approach had been undertaken by the occupy encampments across the US and around the world, undertaken by everyone rejecting the global concentration camp imposed on us all. Imagine if the skull-bashing and finger snapping pigs of the State-terror machine, instead of being met with passive resistance to the dismantling of the encampments, had been met with molotov cocktails and bowling balls raining from roof tops; and resisters sporting helmets shoulder pads, and baseball bats appropriated from Dick’s sporting goods; or had faced man-hole covers blasting into the sky and streets collapsing under them from improvised explosive devices in the sewers – perhaps the trajectory of history would be quite different today.

All I’m saying is, if a former gas station attendant and a former sandwich station tech at Wendy’s can nearly defeat the hyper-fascist forces inside the State’s mind-fuck control unit by employing styrofoam cups, a tube of toothpaste, and a broken broomstick, what hope exists for the crapitalist pigs and their fuckweasel enforcers? If only a small fraction of so-called anarchists, revolutionaries, freedom-fighters, libertarians, tea-partiers or occupy supporters got serious for a moment, all the world’s officer Millers would have to remove their balls from our instant potatoes and run naked, screaming for their miserable and worthless lives, chased by angry hordes carrying pitchforks and torches, demanding a reckoning. I don’t want to impress you. I don’t even want to inspire you. I just want to wake you up. The state is a can of pepper-spray and there’s no reasoning with it. Freedom means destroying it.

We don’t need Gandhi’s approval. This is reality, however it is we feel about it. We need Gandhi to pass that tube of toothpaste and get that lunch tray strapped to his arm.

This is how you take back the future.

Brave new motherfucking world, Mohandas. Brave new motherfucking world.


Freedom or Death,


Sean Swain

Anarchist Prisoner of War

Mansfield Corruptional Institution

Super Mind-fuck Unit 2

11 July 2013



*BTW Sean doesn’t have access to the internet, so he doesn’t know about DJ being a a transphobic salmon touching turd.


Correspondance with Authorities

This is a series of letters Sean wrote to legal “experts” in Ohio regarding the accusation that his proposal to create a BLAST! Blog constituted a threat.

32 July 2013
Dear Chief Counsel:

I write to you to relate grave concerns regarding the conduct of the ODRC Counsel Trevor Matthew Clark, Esquire. I send copies of this correspondence to Mr. Rob Jeffreys, Chief, Bureau of Classification; to Joanna Saul, Director, C.I.I.C and to my legal counsel, Robert Fitrakis. I also retain copies for forwarding to the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel and the Bar Association.

Some background: In September 201 here at MANCI I was ideologically targeted and profiled, absent any accusation of misconduct, by investigator Angela M. Hunsinger, for my beliefs and protected speech. Admittedly so. When I retained activist attorney, Robert Fitrakis, the director reversed the entire case (MANCI-12-007219).

However, prior to that reversal on 24 April 2013, I was interviewed by Mr. Clark on 27 March. In that interview, Mr. Clark gave me the home addresses of Ohio lawmakers, some of which I memorized, including the address of Robert F. Hagar (562 Madera, Youngstown). I questioned then as I do now the propriety of Mr. Clark giving legislators’ private information to convicted felons. His conduct was highly irregular and conceivably criminal. I have since reported it to the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel and the Bar Association, as Mr. Clark may pose a serious danger to the lives of Ohio law makers.

Also on that date, Mr. Clark sought to coerce Les Dillon, ad admitted member of the Army of the 12 Monkeys, to retract his sworn statement that he had voluntarily written on my behalf and to falsely implicate me in that group. While Mr. Dillon resisted Mr. Clark’s coercion, this event reveals that Mr. Clark’s intentions were not to un-do the unconstitutional actions taken against me, but to find a pretext for justifying what had been done.

This is further supported by kite communications from Lt. Barlow here at MANCI. On 23 April 2013, the day before Director Mohr reversed MANCI-12-002907, referenced my guilty finding in that case, and my referral for security level increase – ALL 16 DAYS BEFORE THAT R.I.B. CASE WOULD BE HEARD. How did he know, 16 days in advance, that I would be found guilty, and referred for security increase? He claims he was informed by Mr. Trevor Clark. That means Mr. Clark had orchestrated my guilty finding more than 2 weeks before my R.I.B. Hearing.

Further, on 30 April 2013, Mr. Clark sent a fax to my counsel, Robert Fitrakis. In it, he wrote: “Inmate Swain’s disciplinary and classification hearings will be completed forth with.” Please note that a classification hearing would only be required in the event that (1) I was found guilty and (2) I was recommended for a security level increase.

So, now, the question naturally arises: How did Lt. Barlow, the R.I.B. Chair, and Mr. Trevor Clark, ODRC Counsel, both know in advance of my R.I.B. hearing that I would be found guilty of charged rule violations and recommended for a security level increase? Absent a paranormal explanation it would appear quite clear that Mr. Clark had engineered a “fix”, a predetermined outcome for my disciplinary process, contrary to all statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards.

Lt. Barlow’s 12 April Local Control Review is available on DOTS and Mr. Clark can provide you a copy of his fax to my counsel. My counsel can also provide you a copy of both.

To make matters worse, Lt. Barlow has admitted in a kite communication that he did not find me guilty in MANCI-13-002907 based upon the evidence presented at the hearing (as no evidence was presented at the hearing), but instead based on the “evidence” presented by Mr. Clark in my absence at a secret tribunal conducted prior to my hearing. By R.I.B. Chair Lt. Barlow’s own admission, he and Mr. Clark conspired off the record, ex parte, in my absence, and determined my guilt based on “evidence” I was never permitted to review nor challenge.

Does the Ohio Administrative Code, Ohio Constitution, or U.S. Constitution allow for “secret tribunals”?

Then, during the R.I.B. Hearing, Mr. Clark, on the record, confiscated all of my defense paperwork, alleging that “the FBI” wanted it.

I believe this long and documented pattern calls into question Mr. Clark’s judgment and propriety, if not his integrity. I ask that you intervene in this matter, investigate, and take appropriate action to correct this situation before Mr. Clark’s bizarre behavior must be addressed in a more formal and more public forum.

Please feel free to contact my legal counsel, Mr. Robert Fitrakis, at (614) 307-9783.

Thank you for your time and kind consideration of this matter.



Sean Swain

c: Rob Jeffreys, Chief, Bureau of Classification
Robert Fitrakis, Legal Counsel
Joanna Saul, Director, CIIC
A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, Columbus Ohio Disciplinary Counsel

Here is The Columbus Bar Association’s response: Letter about Clark

And Swain’s response to that letter.


23 July 13

Dear Assistant Bar Counsel Clous:

I received today your letter of 18 July 2013, in which you indicate that you cannot determine whether Mr. Trevor Clark acted in an unprofessional or unethical manner when he gave home addresses and phone number of Ohio legislators to a convicted felon accused of creating his own terrorist networks. Thank you. Your correspondence will soon be posted at

As I am sure you yourself are legal counsel, your assessment must be correct. If Mr. Clark handing out lawmakers’ home addresses to convicted felons and accused terrorists violates no ethical standards, then certainly it violates no law. If Mr. Clark was violating the law, he would be violating ethical standards. So, you done me the invaluable service of confirming that giving Ohio lawmakers’ home addresses to strangers without their consent is perfectly okay And if it poses no public danger to give Ohio lawmakers’ addresses to strangers, then certainly it should be okay to give out addresses of, say, corrections officials. And if it s okay to give out home addresses of corrections officials, there is no conceivable threat in someone proposing a web features where corrections officials addresses might get posted on a message board.

Again, Thank you.



Sean Swain




23 July 2013

Dear Governor:

I’m very confused and I hope you can help me. Because I’m a prisoner and a simple guy, I’m going to write this in plain, simple language. I hope you don’t mind.

To give you an idea of what I’m facing, I have 3 cases in point to present to you:

FIRST CASE IN POINT. In August 2012, ODRC Director Gary Mohr outsourced prisoner financial transaction to the Jpay Corporation, and in the process he gave the personal information – Ohioans’ home addresses, phone numbers, and photos – of upwards of 700,000 prisoner visitors to Jpay without the consent of those 700,000 citizens. When I challenged this, every Ohio agency I contacted claimed that Gary Mohr’s conduct is okay.

Now, there’s a proposition of law in this, I think. A general principle. Director Mohr can bundle my elderly parents’ personal information and give it away to whomever he chooses without consent. And if “all men are created equal” under the law, that means anyone else can do what Director Mohr did. It’s okay for anyone to give away personal information of anyone else without asking consent.

The legislature said it’s okay. Your administration said it’s okay. Law enforcement said it’s okay.

SECOND CASE IN POINT. The ODRC has a website that posts my photo, name, and a description of my criminal convictions. The ODRC posts the same information on 50,000 Ohio prisoners. This is done without our consent.

Again, we have a general principle here. It’s okay to post public information on-line without someone’s permission. The law is the law. If the ODRC can do it, so can you, and so can I.

Your administration says it’s okay. The legislature says it’s okay. Law enforcement says it’s okay.

THIRD CASE IN POINT. On 27 March, ODRC Counsel Trevor Matthew Clark interviewed me and during questioning he handed me an address list that included home addresses and phone numbers, including yours, of Ohio officials. I held the list long enough to memorize some of the addresses. Senator Teresa Fedor, for example, lives on Belvedere in Toledo. Representative Hagar lives on Madera Avenue in Youngstown. Speaker of the House Louis Blessing lives on McGill Lane.

I found ODRC Counsel Trevor Clark’s conduct absolutely bewildering. Imagine if I was actually guilty of murder, and if I had actually formed the international terror network that Mr. Clark falsely alleges I formed. It would seem completely irrational to hand your personal, home address to a convicted murderer accused of terrorism.

It really makes you wonder about this bozo’s motives, doesn’t it?

Well, as it turns out, he did nothing wrong. That’s what the ODRC Director Gary Mohr says. That’s what he legislature says. And that’s what the Ohio State Highway Patrol says.

There’s nothing wrong with giving your home address to anybody without your consent. ODRC Counsel Trevor Clark did it and admits it in recorded testimony at my disciplinary hearing (MANCI-13-002907).

So now, having presented those 3 cases in point, I’m confused. I hope you can help me. The situation is this: I was falsely accused and provably framed for prison rule violations, facing supermax for no valid reason, and I proposed to friends in the free world that they created an on-line feature to expose the corrupt officials who maliciously framed me. I proposed posting their names, faces, and descriptions of their misconduct.

Sound familiar? I got the idea from the ODRC. I know it’s okay to do it. You said so. Director Mohr said so. The legislature said so. Law enforcement said so.

But now, with the original frame-up exposed, even Director Mohr said I did nothing wrong, and still I am going to maximum security because I proposed a web feature to expose prison staff crimes to the tax paying, voting public. And this is very confusing if you consider the 3 cases-in-point I’ve presented.

Remember, it’s okay for Director Mohr to bundle and give away my elderly parents’ personal information to anyone… And it’s okay for the ODRC to post my photo and name and offense description on-line without my consent… And it’s even okay for Trevor Clark to give your home address and phone number to a (falsely) accused terrorist in prison. So, my confusion lies in this: why is Trevor Clark, who gave me your home address, having me sent to maximum security simply because I proposed a web feature (that does not exist) that would post the same information about him and about Director Mohr that the ODRC posts about me?

It’s either okay to post someone’s name photo and conduct descriptions without their permission, or it isn’t.

You say it’s okay. The legislature says it’s okay. The courts say it’s okay. Law enforcement says it’s okay. Director Mohr doesn’t just say it’s okay – he does it… But ODRC Counsel Trevor Clark (who hands out your home address to accused terrorists without your consent) says it’s not okay.

Trevor Clark says if I post names, photos and conduct descriptions of ODRC bad apples, or even by simply proposing that someone else should do it, I am promoting “violence,” “property damage,” and “harassment of persons.” But if this truly the case as he says, my questions is, why has the ODRC for decades promoted “violence” and “property damage” and “harassment of person,
against me and against 50,000 other prisoners whose information is posted at the ODRC website? Also, why is Director Mohr promoting “violence” and “property damage” and “harassment of persons” against my elderly parents and the 700,000 prisoner visitors whose information he bundled and gave away without their consent? And why is the ODRC Counsel Trevor Clark promoting “violence” and “property damage” and “harassment of persons” against you when handing your address out to convicted felons accused of terrorist activities?

I hope you understand my confusion. As a model prisoner trying to earn a parole and go home, I seek nothing more than a means to hold corrupt prison officials accountable and I’ve done nothing more than propose a web feature to expose the crimes of my captors to tax payers and voters, and I am subject to a regiment of torture and terror by prison officials whose own conduct, which may in fact be criminal, reveals their knowledge that my lesser conduct is no violation of their rules.

Prison officials present that my proposal for publicly exposing staff crimes “threatens” the “security” of the prisons. I would suggest to you, Sir, that the crimes of my captors threatens prison security. I would suggest that Gary Mohr’s pirating of 7000,000 identities of Ohio citizens to an out-of-state profiteer threatens “security”. I would suggest that an unstable attorney for the ODRC handing out your home address to convicted criminals violates “security”.

Exposing bad apples to public scrutiny so systems can be reformed and the corrupt can be weeded out is not a threat to security. It is good policy. It is a public service. And the very fact that the ODRC feels so threatened shows just how far down the rabbit hole we really are.

I am a whistle-blower victimized by corrupt bureaucrats circling the wagons and defending the status quo, punishing me for what amounts to good citizenship. We’re through the looking glass. I am being subject to a terror campaign by an unstable bureaucrat who hands your home address out to prisoners and then tells those under his mismanagement, “Don’t do as I say, and don’t do as I do.”

Please investigate this matter and take appropriate action so that I do not die in prison for being a model prisoner. My legal counsel, activist attorney Robert Fitrakis, may be reached at (614) 307-9783.

Thank you for your time and kind consideration.



Sean Swain

c: Counsel Robert Fitrakis
Mr. Rob Jeffreys, Chief, Bureau of Classification
Ms. Joanna Saul, Director, CIIC

Rules Infraction Board Fails to Mount Coherent Case, Finds Swain Guilty Anyhow

On April 30th, 2013 the Mansfield Correctional Rules Infraction Board (RIB) held a hearing for Sean Swain where they again tried to make the case that he is the leader and founder of the Army of the 12 Monkeys (A12M), an anarchist prison gang / guerilla army. The hearing lasted an unprecedented three hours and forty-five minutes. Leslie Dillon, admitted founding member of A12M testified that Swain is innocent and that the charging official, investigator Angela Hunsinger actually provided the guerilla manuals. The hearing and conduct report were rife with inaccuracies, jurisdictional issues, illegal investigative procedures, and absurdities, but still resulted in a guilty verdict against Mr Swain.

A summary of some of those irregularities (more detailed analysis, from Sean is online here.:

1. They admitted that the first conduct report was harassment and unconstitutional targeting- and described the current conduct report as a rehearing of that conduct report. In other words, they are saying that they are repeating and continuing harassment and unconstitutional targeting.
2. This is NOT a rehearing, there are new charges and a whole new set of supposed evidence, collected in March of 2013. 200 days after the investigation was supposed to be over.
3. Legally, there is no conduct report. ManCI investigator Angela Hunsinger signed the conduct report, she’s the charging official, but in the hearing, she disavowed the entire thing and testified that she did not write it.
4. Leslie Dillon’s testified in Sean’s favor, re-affirmed his affidavit. This exonerates Sean completely and proves the entire process is just malicious harassment.
5. No evidence was admitted during the hearing by the charging official. None. Not one piece of paper. The guilty verdict of the RIB was based on Hunsinger’s totally inaccurate and blatantly false characterizations of letters written by 12 Monkey-accused prisoners.
6. ManCI investigators should not have had access to those letters. They can only review prisoners’ outgoing correspondence for a 21 day investigation. The investigation started September 19th and ended October 10th, 2012. The letters referred to in the conduct report (but not presented as evidence during the hearing) were written in March of 2013.
7. Three of those letters were written by other prisoners and have no bearing on Swain’s conduct.
8. None of the letters Sean wrote are conceivably threats to the security of the facility or indications of involvement with the army of the 12 Monkeys.
A. Letters in which he mentions that 12 Monkeys manuals can be found online at and He has presented this information to people he wrote to (including ODRC Director Gary Mohr) as evidence that someone outside the prison with access to the internet must have created A12M.
B. In one letter he makes a joke that outside supporters should capitalize on 12 Monkeys notoriety by printing T-Shirts. He compares them to the famously ironic Che Gueverra t-shirts. This is obviously irrelevant and protected speech.
C. In another letter, he proposes a feature to a website he does not own or control ( A proposal which was rejected by the people who do control the website, and which, even if adopted, would be considered protected free speech by precedent set in federal courts.
9. Trevor Clark- who assisted in writing the conduct report (or, based on Hunsinger’s testimony, likely wrote the report and had her sign it) was visibly agitated and left the hearing. Later, he repeatedly burst back in to interrupt the hearing and tell everyone that he was on the phone with the FBI and had told them about that time when he shared the home addresses of Ohio politicians with Sean during one of their interviews. Clark seemed to intend this as some kind of threat… we’re not sure how stupidly sharing his mistake with more people hurts Sean. Clark said he would be writing a new conduct report against Sean.

Despite all of these absurdities, the RIB hearing found Sean guilty and will continue to hold him in the control unit and deprive him of basic rights and human needs, like sleep and adequate meals while he files his appeals.

Swain’s supporters believe this is ManCI’s true intention. They want to keep Sean there, so they can continue to torture him. If we beat these charges, they’ll just manufacture new conduct reports to keep Sean under investigation permanently. The conduct report Clark threatened to write would be the fourth frivolous and nonsensical report filed against Swain since September: 1.the admittedly ideology-targeting report, 2. the “redo” report producing this hearing, and 3. a frivolous report filed by Uriah Melton– Swain’s supposed advocate at ManCI are the other three. 4. Clark’s new report, to be uncovered.

Please send Sean mail, please donate to his legal fund. We are going forward with the lawsuit and could use all the help we can get. Thanks to hours Kate from RedBird spent on the phone with central office, Sean and the others can receive zines again. Please send things to read.

It seems like the mailroom continue to throw Sean’s mail away, randomly. If you mail him, or any of the A12M accused prisoners anything, please drop an email so we can verify if he received it (via Mr Fitrakis’ legal mail).

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.