🇺🇸J6 ALERT🇺🇸 1-2-22 🇺🇸Guy Refitt🇺🇸
All of this arbitrary and administrative solitary confinement is a violation under the Due Process Clause in the Fourteen Amendment and further, our Fifth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 Civil Rights being violated. Ernest Porter is a death row inmate in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and he gets a better life than we. Porter v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. 974 F.3d 431 (3rd Cir. 2020) No. 18-3505 is solitary confinement of 22/2, has the same confinement cell as do we. He gets a daily visit from a religious leader, five (5) days of open air outside recreation, once per week non-contact personal visit. We are pretrial detainees and under the law (when the law wasn't political) are not to be subjected to such treatment. When a death row inmate, charged with First degree murder gets a better treatment over pretrial detainees, this system is failing Americans. If you question whether this confinement is arbitrary? When they lockdown December 3, 2021 to show appreciation for their officers and give them dinner (I have been told it was steak) while we are subjected to more than twenty four (24) hours of solitary confinement, yes that is arbitrary. That is not the only date of arbitrary lockdown. I have a very extensive list of these kinds of decisions.
Such as lockdown from 12/23 to 12/24 yet not on Christmas (yes it was for the day but shows clear arbitrary decisions) it's the arbitrary and administrative part that becomes the fatal blow to the law.
Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154
No. 17-6922
As a general proposition, such individualized restrictions - whether disciplinary or administrative - implicate procedural due process concerns. In some circumstances, however, the treatment of a pretrial detainee can be so disproportionate, gratuitous, or arbitrary that it becomes a categorically prohibited punishment that will sustain a substantive due process claim. See Surprenant, 424 F.3d at 13 (1st Cir. 2005) ("An arbitrary, or disproportionate sanction, or one that furthers no legitimate penological objective, constitutes punishment (and, thus, is proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment). "). https://t.me/TheAmericanGulagChronicles
All of this arbitrary and administrative solitary confinement is a violation under the Due Process Clause in the Fourteen Amendment and further, our Fifth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 Civil Rights being violated. Ernest Porter is a death row inmate in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and he gets a better life than we. Porter v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. 974 F.3d 431 (3rd Cir. 2020) No. 18-3505 is solitary confinement of 22/2, has the same confinement cell as do we. He gets a daily visit from a religious leader, five (5) days of open air outside recreation, once per week non-contact personal visit. We are pretrial detainees and under the law (when the law wasn't political) are not to be subjected to such treatment. When a death row inmate, charged with First degree murder gets a better treatment over pretrial detainees, this system is failing Americans. If you question whether this confinement is arbitrary? When they lockdown December 3, 2021 to show appreciation for their officers and give them dinner (I have been told it was steak) while we are subjected to more than twenty four (24) hours of solitary confinement, yes that is arbitrary. That is not the only date of arbitrary lockdown. I have a very extensive list of these kinds of decisions.
Such as lockdown from 12/23 to 12/24 yet not on Christmas (yes it was for the day but shows clear arbitrary decisions) it's the arbitrary and administrative part that becomes the fatal blow to the law.
Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154
No. 17-6922
As a general proposition, such individualized restrictions - whether disciplinary or administrative - implicate procedural due process concerns. In some circumstances, however, the treatment of a pretrial detainee can be so disproportionate, gratuitous, or arbitrary that it becomes a categorically prohibited punishment that will sustain a substantive due process claim. See Surprenant, 424 F.3d at 13 (1st Cir. 2005) ("An arbitrary, or disproportionate sanction, or one that furthers no legitimate penological objective, constitutes punishment (and, thus, is proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment). "). https://t.me/TheAmericanGulagChronicles