What You Will Find In The Stolen Mail Files

When an organization or an employee within an organization causes mail to not be delivered to the person it was addressed to without an explanation why, both the sender and the recipient have no choice but to conclude the mail was stolen.

When the same organization and it's employees fail to follow the organizations own policies concerning mail, fail to notify the inmate the mail was rejected, fail to notify the sender the mail was rejected, or even have the common courtesy to return the mail to the sender which would cost nothing, both parties have no choice but to conclude these actions are the result of a conspiracy.

When the mail that is sent is of a legal nature and it simply disappears with no notification or explanation from anyone, both parties have no choice but to conclude the intent is to interfere with the inmates access to the courts.

When a persons mail to an inmate is stolen and sent to the senders prosecutor in an upcomming trial and the sender receives a copy of it from his own attorney's, with a Bates Number on it and the date it was admitted to the court as evidence to be used against him at trial, both parties have no choice but to conclude that A FEDERAL CRIME WAS COMMITTED!!!

This is what you will find in the stolen mail files.

Stolen Mail 2008

1. Steve Karban: Legal mail opened out of the presence of the inmate. 10/27/08 In violation of:

   Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993)
   Lemon v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991)
   1) "Special Mail" may not be opened by prison officials outside the presence of the inmate.

   2) "Special Mail" is mail from federal prisoner directed to attorneys, designated state & federal officials, and representatives of news media, and it is not to be opened by prison officials.

   3) Prison official's interference with plaintiff's legal mail violates both plaintiff's constitutional right of access to the courts and his First Amendment rights of free speech.

    

   Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445 (3rd Cir. 1995)
   1) Prisoners do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to use of the mails.

   2) In the context of the First Amendment and prison mail, "censorship" means altering or withholding delivery of particular letter.

   Prison officials not entitled to qualified immunity in suit alleging constitutional violations by opening prisoners incoming legal mail outside his presence.

    

2. Steve Karban: Letter opened by Special Security Unit (SSU). 11/18/08

3. Steve Karban: Letter opened by Special Security Unit (SSU). 11/26/08

4. Bradley Kennedy: Letter opened by Special Security Unit (SSU). 12/07/08

5. Steven Karban: Outgoing letter to sister Lanny Berg opened. 12/15/08

Stolen Mail 2009

1. James Coghill: Incoming letter was stolen by CO3 Clemente who was the head of the Cook Unit mail room at the time in violation of:

   US Constitution Amendment 1
   
   USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 83
   § 1708. Theft or receipt of stolen mail matter generally
   How Current is This? Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein; or
   Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein which has been left for collection upon or adjacent to a collection box or other authorized depository of mail matter; or
   Whoever buys, receives, or conceals, or unlawfully has in his possession, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein, which has been so stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted, as herein described, knowing the same to have been stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted—
   Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

   
   Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 6

The stolen letter was sent to my prosecutor Shawn Jensvold who received the stolen mail in violation of:

US Constitution Amendment 1
USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 83 § 1708
Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 6

He then filed it with the court to be used as evidence against me in my trial CR20042573 Bates No.100351, 01/26/2009. How many other people are having their mail sent to prosecutors by the Arizona Department Of Corrections in violation of Federal Law?

2. Joe Hines: Reports John Ploof is working with Middle Ground regarding A.D.O.C.’s refusal to let caselaw in. 01/07/09

3. Frank Charlson: Reports my letter in the package I sent him had been removed and the Antipolygraph.Org document had been delayed 3 weeks in delivery. 01/22/09

4. Steve Karban: Reports letter with the Gonzales case was removed. 02/04/09

5. Joe Hines: Reports he hasn’t heard from me in a long time. He obviously isn’t getting my mail. A letter is sent for everyone received. 03/30/09

6. Byron Bochert: Reports his mail from me and his family was delayed 8 days. 05/21/09

7. Carl Davis: Reports mail was ruled as contraband by SSU. It was a copy of SB 1011 which changed the state laws for GPS requirements for sex offenders. Mail was ruled as contraband in violation of:

A.D.O.C. DO 1.5.4 Incoming legislative correspondence shall be opened and inspected only in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed and may be read only to the extent necessary to establish the presence of contraband.

Obviously A.D.O.C. can't even abide by their own mail regulations and doesn’t believe the inmates have a right to know proposed changes in state law that directly apply to them. 08/20/09

2. Byron Bochert: Reports mail was ruled as contraband by SSU. It was a copy of SB 1011 which changed the state laws for GPS requirements for sex offenders. Obviously A.D.O.C. doesn’t believe the inmates have a right to know proposed changes in state law that directly apply to them. Byron requested the letter returned to sender. It never was. 08/21/09

3. Sidney Keaton: Reports my mail to him has been screwed with. 08/21/09

4. Byron Bochert: Reports untimeliness in court filings caused by frequent shakedowns where entire yard is locked down with no access to the library. 09/20/09

5. Sidney Keaton: Reports access to the library has been limited to 1 day a week for the last 6 weeks.10/13/09

6. Sidney Keaton: Report SSU called him in to pick up the mail that I sent. That they didn’t like USPS flat rate mailing envelopes or the fact that all my letters have the same typed address labels and come in at the same time. Perhaps I should send my mail in burlap bags with handwritten tags and make daily deliveries to the US Post Office so my mail will get through. 10/01/09

7. Byron Bochert: Reports a 16 day post-dating of mail from me. 10/05/09

Stolen Mail 2010

1. Sidney Keaton: Reports mail sent in mid-December was received January 4th, 2010, an approximate 19 day delay in delivery.01/04/10

2. Sidney Keaton: Reports that he hasn’t heard from me in over a month. Last letter was sent 01/05/10. Steve Karban had caselaw contrabanded by the mailroom. 01/27/10

3. Alberto Cisneros: Reports that his copy of the SO Combat Manual was reluctantly given to him by CO2 Gomez. 07/20/10

4. Carl Davis: Reports that he still has not received the Habeas Corpus packet I sent him approximately 2 letters ago. To date he still has not received it 08/17/10

5. Steve Karban: Reports he is unable to send me material concerning his civil suit because the library was closed. To date I still have not received it. 10/06/10

6. James Coghill: Mails 18 SO Combat Manuals costing $65 in postage alone. 10/13/10

7. Steve Karban: Reports that a role playing script taken from a sex offender treatment program in Phoenix has caused the SO Combat Manual to be withheld from delivery. That his set of manuals has been withheld for 13 days and he has not received them. That he never would have learned about it if his sister hadn’t told him in phone conversation that they were sent because the mailroom never notified him they were being withheld. In violation of:

   Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396, 40 L.Ed.2d 224, 94 S.Ct. 1800 (1974)

His sister sent 2 priority boxes of case law that disappeared without notification as well. In violation of:

US Constitution Amendment 1
USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 83 Sec. 1708. 10/28/10
Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 6

8. Steve Karban: Reports his legal materials have stopped arriving. That by policy (DO 914) he is supposed to be notified and hasn’t been. In violation of:

   US Constitution Amendment 1
   USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 83 § 1708
   Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 6
   Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396, 40 L.Ed.2d 224, 94 S.Ct. 1800 (1974)
   Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445 (3rd Cir. 1995)
   Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993)
   Lemon v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991)

He was informed that telling him the reason why his mail was terminated would impede the investigation. He filed for a preliminary injunction in court. He requested an external investigation with the Post Master General. He wrote CIU requesting an internal investigation. 11/03/10

9. Lanny Berg: Sent me a copy of the ruling Steve Karban sent her stating on 11/01/10 that the SO Combat Manual violated DO 914 because it was a “threat to security”. On 12/29/10 the SO Combat Manual is banned for being “sexually explicit”, “the publication was rejected as whole”, “that no pages can be removed to make it acceptable.” So whats the reason? Is it a security threat or sexually explicit? Why can’t parts of it be removed to make it acceptable to A.D.O.C.?

10. Jan Borrud: Reports that 8 of the SO Combat Manuals were contrabanded and returned. They obviously lied because I never received them back. 12/06/10

Stolen Mail 2011

1. Steve Karban: Reports that there is connection between the banning of the SO Combat Manual, a self-help legal aid and a recent law suit against A.D.O.C. for lack of medical care where the court ruled in the inmates favor stating, “self-diagnosis from a medical book is better than no diagnosis from medical staff.” Since then all the medical books were removed from the libraries, even text based medical encyclopedias are banned both at the library and through US Mail. 03/06/11

2. Bradley Kennedy: Reports that from September 16th, 2010 to November 22nd, 2010 there was no response to the legal mail he sent to his attorney Ms. Pamela J. Eaton. One letter was returned by US Mail stating the reason for return was “insufficient address”. However none of the other letters were returned. Were they even sent by A.D.O.C.? Letters from November 22nd, 2010 to January 3rd, 2011 go unanswered. On January 3rd, 2011 Bradley Kennedy receives notice that prison legal mail officer CO3 Campbell #8869 opened his legal mail because, “a) the law office of Ms. Pamela J. Eaton was not found on A.D.O.C. or State Bar of Arizona files, b) handwriting, c) no telephone number, d) no Fax number, e) no website or e-mail listed, f) no date on letter. The document was opened, read, scanned into computer files by A.D.O.C. This letter fails to meet the standards of A.D.O.C. for legal mail and was opened.” Bradley Kennedy never received this letter in violation of:

   US Constitution Amendment 1
   USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 83 § 1708
   Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 6
   Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445 (3rd Cir. 1995)
   Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993)
   Lemon v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991)

What initially tipped the mailroom off was that Ms. Eaton’s was not listed on A.D.O.C. or State Bar of Arizona files, which is a lie. (See exhibit which is a printout of the State Bar of Arizona’s website concerning Ms. Pamela J. Eaton’s contact information that I sent Bradley Kennedy myself.) It is important to remember that an attorney representing an inmate from out of state would not necessarily appear on the State Bar of Arizona website. Is their mail subjected to such intense scrutiny? How many other people have had this happen to them? Additional letters sent from January 3rd, 2011 to March 24th, 2011 go unanswered and unreturned. Were they sent or thrown in the trash?

All of the above mail has been sent to a small group of inmates that have become known as the "legal club". The legal club’s primary objective is to study the law and to help others do the same. It is composed of mostly pro se filers. Consequently their involvement with the legal club is the only source of legal information they have concerning the law, other than what is so poorly provided in the library, which has no law library at all. During my 2 1/2 years in prison I became a member of the legal club because I realized that this was the only way that I was going to educate myself in the law and know what my rights are. Upon my departure from prison in 2008 I wasn't just asked for my assistance from the outside, I was begged! I promised every member of the legal club that I would provide them with whatever legal materials I could give them and that it would cost them nothing. During the four years that I have pursued this matter the Arizona Department of Corrections has stolen my mail and sent it to my prosecutor, stolen the mail of the members of the legal club and opened legal mail, of which, none of this they had a right under law to do. Every letter that I have received from the legal club that referenced stolen mail or mail interference on the part of the Arizona Department of Corrections is provided in this package as proof of our claims. Each letter is copied in its entirety to serve as proof that all that is discussed in these letters concerns primarily the law and may contain a small bit of personal news and nothing more. There is nothing in my communications with the legal club that poses a security risk of any kind and there never will be. Therefore, the degree of interference and inspection of the mail regarding the legal club is excessive and in violation of both state and federal law.

James P. Coghill
715 West Moon Valley Drive
Phoenix, AZ.  85023

September 18, 2011

 

Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624 401 West Washington Street, SPC 59 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2158

The Honorable Rebecca White Berch Arizona Supreme Court, 1501 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007

 

CC:

Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza North S.W. Washington D.C. 20024	Marshals Service One Tysons Comer Center McLean, Virginia 22102	Dept. of Corrections Central Office 1601 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85007
Arizona Postmaster General 522 N Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-9998	U.S. Marshal Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 W. Washington St., SPC 64, Suite 270 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2159	Civil Rights Tenth St. & Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20530
Federal Bureau of Investigation Ninth St. & Penn. Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20535	U.S. Attorney General’s Office Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408	Arizona CLU Contact: Legal Department Address: P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
FBI Phoenix Suite 400 201 East Indianola Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012-2080	Arizona Attorney General’s Office 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85012	Phoenix New Times P.O. Box 2510 Phoenix, AZ 85002
Justice Department Tenth St & Constitution Ave. NW, Wash., D.C. 20530	Bureau Of Prisons 320 First St NW Washington, DC 20001	Arizona Republic P.O. Box 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85001
Mesa Tribune P.O. Box 1547 Mesa, AZ 85211	AZ Daily Star P.O. Box 26807 Tucson, AZ 85726	The Honorable Janice K. Brewer Arizona Governor Executive Tower 1700 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007

 

 

Re: Arizona Dept. of Corrections Mail Theft, and Notification of misprision of felony 18 USC 4

To whom it concerns:

            During the last three years I have sent over 3,000 letters and numerous small packages containing case law and personal mail into Meadows, Winchester and Cook Units.  The inmates that I was writing to informed me that many of my letters were being withheld from them by CO II Madsen from S.S.U., many even went so far as to send me the envelopes that had been stamped by S.S.U.

            Then came the day on January 26th, 2009 when Shawn A. Jensvold an ex-Pima County prosecutor ordered COIII Clemente to send him a copy of my most recent personal mail, which he then filed with the Pima County Superior Court, as Supplemental Disclosure, Bates No. 100351 to be used as evidence against me in my trial.  (See documents located at http://www.azdocstealsmail.info for proof.).

            There have been numerous incidents regarding the illegal handling of inmate mail at Cook Unit.  Which prompted me to conduct research of my own to determine who is involved.  On one occasion an inmate was denied mail containing case law by COII Madsen.  When the inmate whose mail was withheld discovered what had happened as a result of further communication with his family he approached COII Madsen about the withholding of his mail and he was told, "You are only allowed 10 pages of case law per day."  When the inmate demanded to see this policy in writing COII Madsen was unable to produce it and gave the inmate his entire letter.

Both COII Madsen, Sgt. Green, and COIII Clemente are responsible for the illegal withholding of not just case law, but legal mail from the courts as well.  Dr. Bradley Kennedy 211800 had his appeal brief withheld from him for over a week and it wasn't until his mother complained to the deputy warden that he received it, in violation of A.D.O.C. DO 902.  Both COII Madsen, Sgt. Green, and COIII Clemente are quite proud of what they are doing with the inmate mail and have been very boisterous to the inmates as to who is responsible for withholding their mail.  That is how I have come to know that they are the ones who are responsible for these serious criminal activities.

 

 

 

 

James P. Coghill
715 W. Moon Valley Dr.
Phoenix, AZ. 85023

Paralegal For
AZRSOL.ORG
715 W. Moon Valley Dr.
Phoenix, AZ. 85023
(602) 373-0892

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Andrea Gauna AAII
Complex Level-Publications Review
Arizona Department of Corrections
Central Office
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ.  85007

Re: The SO Combat Manual

Dear Ms. Gauna,
            I am the co-author and editor of the SO Combat Manual. The purpose of this letter is to file a formal complaint against the Arizona Department of Corrections for the banning of the SO Combat Manual on 11/01/2010. In addition I would like to inform you that the Arizona Department of Corrections in their handling of this matter is in violation of the US Supreme Court ruling in:
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396, 40 L.Ed.2d 224, 94 S.Ct. 1800 (1974)
1) The inmate must be notified of the rejection of a letter written by or addressed to him.

2) The author must be given a reasonable opportunity to protest the decision.

3) Complaints must be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence.

4) Mail censorship regulations violated the First Amendments protections of lawful expression.
            In the present matter concerning Steven Karban #234332 he was never notified by the mailroom staff at Winchester Unit that he had received mail which had been rejected in violation of item 1 in the above referenced case. He only became aware of it after receiving notification from his sister that it had been sent by her.

            Steve Karban’s sister, Lanny Berg, never received notification that her mail had been rejected and consequently was denied her right under law to have an opportunity to protest the decision in violation of item 2 in the above referenced case.

            I myself, mailed over 18 copies of the SO Combat Manual to various inmates at a cost of $65 in postage alone, and was never notified they were rejected in violation of item 2 in the above referenced case. I only became aware of this through Lanny Berg.

            There is some confusion as to the reason why the SO Combat Manual was banned due to the fact that the reasons stated are very vague and unspecific. Initially it was stated that the SO Combat Manual posed a significant security risk. Please explain in detail how a legal self-help book poses a security risk?

            Then during the second review it was determined that the SO Combat Manual was sexually explicit, that the publication was rejected as a whole document and there were no parts of it that could be removed. Please explain in detail how a legal self-help book is sexually explicit, of which no part of it can be removed to satisfy your requirements?

            In addition to the matter concerning the SO Combat Manual, there is the matter concerning case law that has been sent, which was rejected without notification as well. In particular Steve Karban was sent case law with his copy of the SO Combat Manual, which to date has never been delivered to him. Furthermore I am in possession of numerous letters from inmates in various units, in regard to case law Ms. Berg and I have mailed at our own expense, over a 2 year period, which were rejected and the recipient and the sender were never notified of the rejection and consequently denied their right under law to protest.

 

 

Sincerely,

James P. Coghill

 

James P. Coghill
715 W. Moon Valley Dr.
Phoenix, AZ. 85023
Paralegal For
AZRSOL.ORG
(602) 373-0892

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Andrea Gauna AAII
Complex Level-Publications Review
Arizona Department of Corrections
Central Office
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ.  85007

Re: The SO Combat Manual

Dear Ms. Gauna,
            On March 24th, 2011 I sent you the original complaint. To date I have received no response from you or anyone at ADOC. I am a generous man so I am giving you an additional 30 days to respond. Exceeding this amount of time will indicate that I am being stonewalled and I will then be forced to pursue other avenues available to me in regard to this matter. I also would like to direct your attention to:

U.S. v. Pruden, 424 F.2d 1021 (1970)
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to respond or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

I am the co-author and editor of the SO Combat Manual. The purpose of this letter is to file a formal complaint against the Arizona Department of Corrections for the banning of the SO Combat Manual on 11/01/2010. In addition I would like to inform you that the Arizona Department of Corrections in their handling of this matter is in violation of the US Supreme Court ruling in:

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396, 40 L.Ed.2d 224, 94 S.Ct. 1800 (1974)
1) The inmate must be notified of the rejection of a letter written by or addressed to him.

2) The author must be given a reasonable opportunity to protest the decision.

3) Complaints must be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence.

4) Mail censorship regulations violated the First Amendments protections of lawful expression.
            In the present matter concerning Steven Karban #234332 was never notified by the mailroom staff at Winchester Unit that he had received mail which had been rejected in violation of item 1 in the above referenced case. He only became aware of it after receiving notification from his sister that it had been sent by her.

            Steve Karban’s sister, Lanny Berg, never received notification that her mail had been rejected and consequently was denied her right under law to have an opportunity to protest the decision in violation of item 2 in the above referenced case.

            I myself, mailed over 18 copies of the SO Combat Manual to various inmates at a cost of $65 in postage alone, and was never notified they were rejected in violation of item 2 in the above referenced case. I only became aware of this through Lanny Berg.

            There is some confusion as to the reason why the SO Combat Manual was banned due to the fact that the reasons stated are very vague and unspecific. Initially it was stated that the SO Combat Manual posed a significant security risk. Please explain in detail how a legal self-help book poses a security risk?

            Then during the second review it was determined that the SO Combat Manual was sexually explicit, that the publication was rejected as a whole document and there were no parts of it that could be removed. Please explain in detail how a legal self-help book is sexually explicit, of which no part of it can be removed to satisfy your requirements?

            In addition to the matter concerning the SO Combat Manual, there is the matter concerning case law that has been sent, which was rejected without notification as well. In particular Steve Karban was sent case law with his copy of the SO Combat Manual, which to date has never been delivered to him. Furthermore I am in possession of numerous letters from inmates in various units, in regard to case law Ms. Berg and I have mailed at our own expense, over a 2 year period, which were rejected and the recipient and the sender were never notified of the rejection and consequently denied their right under law to protest.

 

 

Sincerely,

James P. Coghill

 

Organizations Contacted Regarding Theft Of Mail

This Web Site Was Created By

For more information on this subject

click on the following buttons

For questions or comments about this website contact: jcoghill2@cox.net