Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv-00694-GIVIS Document 151 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 1 of 3
1 Amir Fatir # 137010
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, DE 19977
July 14, 2008
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet JU 1
Chief Judge L 2 3 2008
U.S. District Court 1 U S D;
844 N. King street y |gTmc? “,;i6}i~0¤RT
. . 1 LAWAR
Wilmmgton, DE 19801 _
gc) S (Q F7 |'\ x
RE: Boyer, et al. v. Taylor, et al.,
C.A. N0. 06-694-GMS
Dear Chief Judge Sleet:
In a letter dated July 7, 2008, State Defendants’ counsel Erika Y. Tross, wrote
your honor and expressed:
1) Plaintiff Boyer is currently classified to Medium High Security (MHU)l.
2) Plaintiff Fatir has not provided this Court with any proof that Plaintiff Boyer
believes he is being retaliated against.
3) "P1aintiff Fatir’s letter appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to obtain
information about plaintiff Boyer’s classification."
4) Plaintiff Fatir is not entitled to such information pursuant to ll Del C. § 4322.
5) State Defendants "are willing" to provide this Court with information in
camera.
In response to Ms. Tross’ comments, the point of my letter to the Court was not
regarding Plaintiff Boyer’s current classification; it concerned his classification hom his
I When it suits the prison to deny prisonas something on "secu1ity’ grounds, prison officials state that
MHU means "Maximum Housing Unit." However, when "medium" prisoners complain that they are still
being held in maximum, the same prison officials say that the inmates are already in medium since MHU
means "Medium High Secu1ity." In MHU there have been official papers posted by staff which state
“Maximum Housing Unit" and others which state "Medium High Security." Prison officials can, thus,
have it both ways in a kind of "head I win, tails you lose" environment.
5

Case 1:06-cv-00694-G|\/IS Document 151 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 2 of 3
2
current housing which was vetoed by Major Scarborough. It appears that Ms. Tross is
the one engaged in a bit of subterfuge by setting up a kind of "straw man" argument and
then proceeding to refute the positions she herself has given to that straw man.
When a classification has been vetoed or otherwise halted, the "current"
classification indicated will be the one which was in effect before the veto occurred.
Surely Ms. Tross is aware of that and, if she isn’t, it would be advisable for her to learn a
little more about the workings of the prison system she hopes to defend.
Since plaintiffs’ jailers have thwarted and denied plaintiffs’ requests to meet and
discuss this case, including providing one another with court-related papers, Plaintiff
Fatir carmot provide this court with any proof of Plaintiff Boyer’s "belief" in the fact that
he is being retaliated against nor any other belief Plaintiff Boyer might hold. However,
the Court has likely already received a letter from Plaintiff Boyer himself indicating that
he is being retaliated against.
I give my word to this Court that Plaintiff Boyer himself does believe that he is
being retaliated against by defendants in general and Major Scarborough in particular and
that it is Plaintiff Boyer’s belief that Major Scarborough’s retaliation is related to
Scarborough’s affidavit submitted to prevent plaintiffs from conferring in which
Scarborough alleged that plaintiffs meeting together would amount to a serious breach of
security. Plaintiff Boyer believes that Scarborough is trying to use that allegation to
prevent him from returning to general population since, if Plaintiff Boyer were to return
to general population, Scarborough’s allegation of a serious security breach would be
seen for the canard that it was and is.
Counsel’s statement that "Plaintiff Fatir’s letter appears to be nothing more than a
subterfuge to obtain information about plaintiff Boyer’s classification" amounts to
nothing but a baseless personal and derogatory attack that, upon examination, amounts to
little more than "the words of an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" as
Shakespeare might say. In point of fact, just about any prisoner can fmd out anyone’s
classification by simply asking just about any guard. Even in the secretive Soviet gulag
style mentality of the Delaware prison system, an inmate’s classification is not something
that is held secret. Moreover, Plaintiff Boyer is a very well-known and respected
prisoner among the prisoners at DCC and just about everyone who knows him knows his
"current classification." The bright yellow clothes he wears is a dead giveaway that he is
"currently classified" to MHU. Therefore, I would not need to use any subterfuge — even
if I were so disposed — to fmd out Plaintiff Boyer’s classification. That classification is
one of the more well-known facts within this prison.
Ms. Tross claims that ll Del C. § 4322 precludes me from having information
such as Plaintiff Boyer’s classification status. The United States District Court is not
subservient to the statutes created by the legislature of a small state in hopes of blocking
prisoners’ right of access to the courts and rights to discovery. Counsel’s evocation of l l
Del. C. § 4322 is misplaced as that state statute has neither power nor relevance in this
federal court matter. Moreover, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution

Case 1:06-cv-00694-G|\/IS Document 151 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 3 of 3
3
places the state of Delaware under the jurisdiction of this court, not the opposite, as Ms.
Tross would have it.
Her mistaken notion of Delaware’s supremacy uber alles is suggested by her
statement that defendants "are willing" to provide information to this Court in camera.
Should this Court order defendants to provide information, defendants have no choice but
to comply. Their "willingness," or lack thereof is irrelevant.
Plaintiffs object to any meeting or provision of materials to the Court in camera
because plaintiffs have a right to be present at all phases of this matter and plaintiffs have
complete faith that given an opportunity to deal with the Court unopposed that the State
Defendants will lie, obfuscate, prevaricate, misrepresent the truth, provide false
documents and deliberately mislead the Court.
Since plaintiffs have a complete lack of faith in the trustworthiness of the
defendants and their counsel, plaintiffs "strenuously object" to any meeting in camera
between this honorable court and defendants’ counsel.
Please make an official inquiry into and an investigation of Major Scarborough’s
retaliatory veto of Plaintiff Boyer’s classification to return to general population. May I
suggest that the court speak with prison counselor Cindy Aitalian, who is a counselor in
the MHU and is a rare honest employee in a prison in which dishonesty seems as natural
and even applauded as is swimming to a dolphin. Ms. Aitalian and classification
Lieutenant Secor (another rare honorable employee) are most likely to have been directly
involved in Plaintiff Boyer’s classification.
Very truly yours,
<;§X»»/at W
Am' Fatir
cc: Erika Y. Tross, Esq., DAG