Kiriakou writes: "Jeffrey Sterling doesn't have the luxury of time. He needs help immediately."
CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling. (photo: ExposeFacts.org)
Whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling Appears to Have Suffered a Heart Attack in Prison
19 September 16
�ve written a couple of articles recently, here and here, about CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling and his battle to get adequate medical care while incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood, Colorado. Jeffrey has a history of atrial fibrillation. He has had several medical �episodes� in prison related to his heart, and prison officials have refused to allow him to see an outside cardiologist or to go to a hospital for tests.
Jeffrey�s wife, Holly Sterling, told me in an email on Sunday that Jeffrey appears to have suffered a heart attack. She said:
Things continue to get worse for Jeffrey. He had another episode today and had to go to the medic. He was playing darts and began sweating profusely, heart pounding, and chest pain. Jeffrey was informed, for the first time, of his blood work results. He has high levels of Troponin. A Troponin test measures the levels of Troponin T or Troponin I proteins in the blood. These proteins are released when the heart muscle has been damaged, such as occurs with a heart attack. The more damage there is to the heart, the greater the amount of Troponin T and I there will be in the blood.
Prison medical officials told Jeffrey two weeks ago that they would take him out to see a specialist, but that never happened. They told Jeffrey recently that it was the cardiologist who had cancelled the visit, a very unlikely proposition. In the meantime, he was forced to initiate something called the �Administrative Remedy Process,� which theoretically would force the warden to take action to help him. More on that in a moment.
Holly Sterling has been tireless in her work to get her husband to a cardiologist. She asked Jeffrey�s sentencing judge, Leonie Brinkema, to intervene. Brinkema refused. She then enlisted the support of Norman Solomon�s Roots Action, which has asked supporters to call Warden Deborah Denham at 303-763-4300. In addition to the warden, Solomon recommends contacting the Bureau of Prisons� North Central Regional Office by calling Sara M. Revell at 913-621-3939 or writing to her at NCRO/ ExecAssistant@bop.gov . Our grass roots pressure may be the only thing that gets Jeffrey Sterling to a cardiologist. It could save his life.
The above is most certainly NOT what the Bureau of Prisons wants you to do. They argue that there is an Administrative Remedy Process in place, and that the only way Jeffrey will get any attention � if, they say, he deserves any at all � is to go through the process. Let me explain what this corrupt, backward, and probably illegal system entails.
If a federal prisoner has a problem � any problem, whether it�s with a rude staff member, a complaint about conditions, or a medical problem � he must fill out a form called a BP-8.5. He writes out his complaint, and the form then goes to the person the prisoner is complaining about. The staff member has one week to respond. Of course, no staff member is going to say, �My bad. You got me. Sorry. We�ll fix this.� So the prisoner then fills out a form BP-9. That goes to the warden, who has four weeks to respond. But again, no warden is going to side with a prisoner over a staff member.
The prisoner then fills out a form BP-10, which goes to the nearest BOP Regional Office. The director there has three months to respond. But regional directors, logically, will support their wardens, not a prisoner. Once the prisoner loses there, he fills out a BP-11, which goes to BOP Headquarters in Washington. Headquarters has six months to respond.
The whole process, then, takes just under a year. But the BOP has two more tricks up its sleeve. First, they backdate their responses. So if the warden has to respond by September 1, let�s say, but he doesn�t actually respond until October 15, he just backdates the response to September 1. So in reality, the process takes more than a year. And a second tactic is if the prisoner actually has a legitimate grievance, the BOP will just transfer him to another prison. He then has to start the process all over again.
To make matters even worse, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, coupled with a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding it, has mandated that all prisoners must exhaust the Administrative Remedy Process before they can file a lawsuit.
Jeffrey Sterling doesn�t have the luxury of time. He needs help immediately. Please pick up your phone and demand treatment for him.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
They had their fingers crossed when they took the oath.
It depends upon who is reading the Constitution. It is unconstitutiona l to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What process is due? That's for the justices to decide. The Supreme Court, in furtherance of police powers, has signed off on forfeitures. There are several forms of forfeiture including IRS seizures, civil and criminal seizures- tools for law enforcement for decades. If the property is alleged to be part of a criminal enterprise, everything can be taken - bank accounts, cars, boats, houses, cash, businesses, everything. The IRS can take your property without showing much proof. There is no requirement that the allegation be accurate or that the property seized be proportional to the offense. This began as a tool to fight organized crime, but over the years, it has become a cottage industry for local law enforcement. The right wing Supreme Court has expanded the powers of the police in this area. Another area of taking is the condemnation of land by municipalities allowing local government to take your home so that a mall can be built where you lived. No one cares much about the civil liberties of criminals, that is until law enforcement gets you in their sights. In Oakland, your lose your car for cruising prostitutes. Forfeitures have grown from a tool to stop drug cartels to a justification for taking stuff the police want.
The Fifth Amendment, among other things, states, "Nor] shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But if cops simply seize and hold it, that's not "use"--and if they take it for themselves, it's not "public use."
Police therefore have ways of justifying what is, in effect, theft by law enforcement.
"Reasonable" does not mean what it means in common usage; it means the cop has to to supply a valid reason. Suspicion that you are going to use it to commit a crime has been held to be a valid reason.
1) no charges are filed,
2) charges are filed but dismissed,
3) the charges are adjudicated in their favor,
4) the property seized is greater in value than the fines resulting from any conviction.
Second, since they don't know these seizures are legal, they don't know there is a problem until THEIR property gets confiscated.
Third, in not knowing there is a problem, people don't realize that the best remedy is to seek to have their State laws governing seizure of property amended. In States that do not have a ballot measure process, this means the only course of action is to persuade the State legislature to act, not an easy thing. For States like California, should the legislature prove unresponsive, people could organize to write amendments to State law and submit them to the voters. Frankly, if I were a California legislator, I would much prefer my house amend the law rather than trust amending to a group whose focus was on retrieving personal property and who probably didn't give a rat's ass about the valid reasons to allow seizure AND RETENTION of personal property.
In many cases, i.e. "U.S. v.s. $4,000", or "U.S. v.s. White Cadillac", the costs to the citizen in both time and money will far exceed the value of either the cash or the property described above.
Local Statutes will also see to that.
The New Mexican Clown is not kidding.
It *IS* a "gold mine".
The ACLU is the only organization fighting this insanity.
https://downsizedc.org/blog/lets-attack-asset-forfeiture-in-the-supreme-court
https://downsizedc.org/blog/asset-forfeiture-laws-endanger-your-right-to-an-attorney
Indeed.
"None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~ Goethe
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
Also we have voted in a bunch of scientific deniers so the things that have to be done to prevent the exponential rise in the climate crises ,
will be on the back burner, possibly until it is too late.