Back to Gary. But not for long.
Ms. Isom and the lieutenant returned to speak with me again. Ms. Isom told me that she had re-read the approval and that while I had been approved to wear two open-toe shoes, the approval was for that day only ! How much sense could that possible make? My doctor had written the letter on Tuesday. On Friday, after I had sent multiple e-mails earlier in the week, after our lawyer had to address the issue with them, and after I had to call the regional office and the regional office had to contact them, the BOPers had "reconsidered" and approved me to wear open-toe shoes, but only for Saturday , as if my foot problem would be magically resolved by the end of the day, and as if "psychic friends network" would let me know! So unfortunately typical bureaucratic, and just plain ridiculous. To their credit, neither Ms. Isom nor the lieutenant even pretended there was any logic or rationality, not that they used those specific words.
I then shared with the lieutenant that I did not believe it was fair for her to have warned and threatened Gary without having addressed my alleged behavior with me, then explained what had actually occurred and asked her to remove the warning from Gary's record. She apologized when she heard how I had been mistreated, and stated she was going to speak with the staff in the entrance area, the ones who had behaved inappropriately. Ms. Isom said she would try to see if she could get approval for me to wear open-toe shoes when I visited on Sunday, the following day and would let me know.
I returned to our assigned RESERVED seats, sat down across from my husband and we joined hands again, as we talked. But within about fifteen minutes, Bradshaw stormed into the visiting room and yelled at Gary to come with him and another BOPer. Strip-search room again.
When Gary returned, he had been warned and threatened yet again, this time because we were holding hands, something their own rules stated was permissible , but that was before Bradshaw apparently decided to retaliate for my reporting his and his co-BOPers' abusiveness toward me. Holding hands was over for us. Gary did tell Bradshaw and his sidekick that he had been given the rules the day before, and the rules allowed us to hold hands. "The rules changed," Bradshaw decreed. Magically, overnight, with no notice, and another warning for Gary.
( See http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/for/FOX_visit_hours.pdf at page 11, C-1: "A kiss and embrace at the beginning and at the end of a visit, is authorized. Hand holding is the only other form of physical contact allowed during a visit.")
For me, though, the most heartbreaking part of Saturday was when Gary needed to go to the restroom. As you know, Gary has prostate disease. BOP-untreated, ignored prostate disease. BOPers have stated in his medical records that they believe he has cancer, yet they have done nothing, even as they refuse his attorney's repeated requests for Gary's records, trying to cover up BOP medical abuse of Gary, and he has not been seen by any doctor at all in over SEVEN MONTHS.
Gary's medical condition causes him to have to go to the restroom frequently. But the BOPers don't allow that. Gary has to ask permission. Saturday, Crawford said NO. Around 1:30, Gary went to the desk and asked Crawford if he could go to the restroom, saying he needed to go. Crawford said NO, that he - Crawford - would make a prisoner restroom announcement at 2:00. All the prisoners have to go together and the BOPers watch them.
2:00 came and went, as Gary suffered and became increasingly uncomfortable. At 2:15, 45 minutes after first asking, Gary went and asked again. NO. Again. Seven minutes later, Crawford made the announcement, and Gary was able to go to the restroom almost an hour after he NEEDED to go, all unlawful, all abusive, and all just to let us know they are in complete control, including when Gary is allowed to relieve himself.
As if that is not bad enough, Gary was warned that the BOPers' policy -- although it is not legal and does not exist in writing anywhere, as that would provide evidence -- is that prisoners are allowed to use the restroom only to urinate, that any other "need" results in termination of visitation, and that the prisoner would under no circumstances be permitted to use the restroom, but would be required to end his visit, wait to be strip-searched, then return to his housing unit before being allowed to use the restroom.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
1
