continued...I do hope that IF he really did do any of these things to you and your kids that you guys will be able to move on and put this behind you and somehow maybe even heal from this. But if you lied or even exaggerated any of this then you are just as evil as he is or anyone else that would do something like this. Every single person that has even been through something like what you have accused Sean of deserves to know the truth and nothing but the cold hard truth. And untill there is actual proof of it then you guys are dishonoring those of us that have really been through such evil violence. When people lie about stuff like this it makes it hard for the rest of us who really ahve been through it to be able to prove it. Because for one thing after so many lies have been told it makes everyone question what you say when something like this does happen to them. And believe it or not there are alot of people that don't want to deal with stuff like this either. It's really sad. There is a part of me that wants to believe you and yet another part of me hopes that this is a lie & it never did happen to you and your children. Cause this is some real serious stuff and if it really did happen it will effect you guys for the rest of your lives and I know exactly what that is like. I'd rather someone kill me than go through what I went through as a child and young adult. Most of my life has been littered with pain and the things you say Sean did. I KNOW exactly what it is like and what it can do to a person's life. It is the worst thing (other than loseing a child) for anyone to ever go through. PLEASE show proof of what Sean did to YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN. NOT PROOF OF HIS PAST ON THINGS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR THAT HAPPEN BEFORE YOU CAME INTO HIS LIFE.
continued...I am asking you kindly and with respect to PLEASE show proof of what Sean did to you and your kids. Was any pics taken of what had happened, any DNA , or just anything that can prove he did the things you say he did. And just so you know I am NOT one of his ex's, or someone who wants to get with him (I do have a grat man in my life) but just someone who really wants to know the cold hard truth and see actual proof that Sean did what you say he did. I am sorry but there are alot of crazy folks out here and I have known women (not many) that have made up lies about stuff like this just cause they were mad at their ex or whatever and wanted them to go to jail. And one of these cases it actually did work. She lied and he went to prison with very little proof that he did what she said he did. It's jsut stuff like this that makes me question both of you. Not just you or just Sean. I have seen several pictures on here of him with the kids and even with you in a couple of them and everyone looks so happy. The children show no fear of him in any of the family videos made. Just some things don't add up. True I wasn't there and true I don't have all the facts and stuff but you guys are posting stuff on here for all the world to see so you can't blame me for wanting to question on some things.
Well this definately proves he can be VERY violent and dangerous. BUT I have known a few men (one of them was my step father) who have been in prison or jail and been known to be just as violent and dangerous but have NEVER hurt a child or any of their loved ones. My step dad was one of the most dangerous men (before he died of cancer)ever known yet he never hurt me or any of my family or anyones kid. And my step dad has even killed people. The police would always call for backup anytime they knew they were being called on him. An entire town was even shut down because of him and the list just goes on and on. And no I am not proud of this by any means. Him and my mom were togoether on & off for 20 years. Why she stood by him for so long is beyond me. He did treat us very good and we never wanted for anything but the life he lived and the things he did to certain people was something you would see in a movie, or talk show or even in a book. Matter of fact some of his friends are actually in a book. Go check out the books called "Bluegrass Conspiracy" and "Helter Skelter". We lived with David Hammon who use to live with Manson long before the murders took place. David was an outlaw for many years known as David Jack. He is dead now but his name is in that book and him and my step dad ran around together for a long time. The point I am trying to make is this: I grew up in a very very strict christan home till I was about 14 and then went to live with my mom and step dad. It was a huge change in my life. Through the years I have been around and met alot of violent men and I mean some real violent men but none (that I know of) ever hurt a child. If they ever did then they are scum in my book. But what I am trying to say is just because someone is violent or has even killed someone doesn't mean they would hurt a child. I been in a marriage with a guy who was just as violent as Sean. This guy put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was half way loaded. I believe it was a 38 but not for sure. This happened over 20 years ago. Well, when my ex pulled the trigger and seen I was still alive he said " I guess it's your lucky day bitch". He did alot of crazy stuff to me and after that happened I left but he tracked me down and this went on for a long time till he finally gave up and found someone else. But anyhow, as mean, evil hearted, dangerous, and sick as he was he never hurt any child. Tayler or whoever you are, you have put up alot of info and proof on here but I have been a victim of child abuse and rape that went on for years as a child and 3 times as an adult. It takes more than someone just saying their ex raped or beat them. There has to be some kind of proof and not just of someone's past of what they have done before they was ever with you.
First of Tayler, you're remarried so why are you on here hiding behind a false name and making false statements. We know you framed Sean and that you severely abused your children it's all on paper. Let's not bring Angel up in these conversations anymore that is unneccessary and completely unacceptable. Sean is a very, very good friend of mine and he will be set free it's just a matter of time. I do not doubt the innocence of Sean, nothing about him screams child and wife abuser, except the false reports made by Tayler. Tayler if I were you, I would be concerned about your wrongdoing and how you abused your children physically, mentally, and emotionally, and how you will suffer at the hands of the justice system. You keep pointing the fingers at Sean, but you're guilty and you think that you're going to continue to bash Sean and make up false testimony to present to the court, you deserve to rot in a small cell for what you have done. Why are you so abusive? Why are you so evil? Why do you hate your kids and Sean so much? Why did you lie and tell the police in a written report that you made a false statement because you were mad about having to move? You see all this stuff is slowly leaking out and you will be in front of a judge for ruining innocent people's live's because you're a sadistic, sick, white trash piece of shit that will eventually rot. I'm waiting for the day that Sean gets released and you have to explain to a judge why you did the sick, cruel things you did.You think you can play the victim here, but a court of justice is going to hear what you have to say and lies can only cover up lies for so long before the truth comes out. So continue posting lies on here you're making yourself look more and more fucken stupid each post.
Above copied information from: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiedce/2:2010cv00906/54450/46/?1342279871
Journal Times comments on various stories about Sean Riker:
October 20, 2012 6:33 pm may he die in prison.
btw, where's riker's little honey? i remember she was posting on JT defending him. did she move on to her next psychopathic skinhead?
Sean and Nathan submitting a lawsuit together, how nice of them. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiwdc/3:2012cv00759/32672/5/?ts=1353515576
You two must be awfully busy:
Lindell, Nathaniel et al v. Jess, Cathy et al
Filed: October 15, 2012 as 3:2012cv00759
Plaintiffs: Nathaniel Allen Lindell and Sean A. Riker
Defendants: Cathy A. Jess and John Does
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Court:Seventh Circuit > Wisconsin > Western District Court
Type:P. Petitions > Civil Rights
Riker, Sean v. Overbo, Todd et al
Filed: September 24, 2012 as 3:2012cv00696
Plaintiff: Sean A. Riker
Defendants: Todd Overbo , Vicki J. Sebatian, Kelli R. Wellard-West, Timothy Haines, Ellie Ray and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Court:Seventh Circuit > Wisconsin > Western District Court
human needs” or the “minimum measure of life’s necessity” Rhoades v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Claims of cruel and unusual punishment require the plaintiff to show he has suffered an objectively, sufficiently serious injury, and that prison staff inflicted the injury with deliberate indifference. Framer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The standard for deliberate indifference is that the defendant committed an act so dangerous that his knowledge of the risk can be inferred or that the defendant knew of an impending harm. Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1427 (citing Miller v. Neathery, 52 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 1995)). In terms of length of confinement with recreation restrictions, more than 90 days of confinement without yard time is considered cruel and unusual, but preventing access to the yard to protect prison staff from violent behavior is reasonable, regardless of the time. Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001). “To confine in ‘solitary’ a prisoner who behaves like a wild beast whenever he is let out of his cell is the least cruel measure . . . for dealing with such a person.” Id. In the case at hand, Riker was not completely deprived of his time out of his cell. At the onset of administrative segregation, Riker was allowed his mandatory one hour per day recreation time. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 5.) This privilege was slowly taken away because of Riker’s violent acts, threats, and property damage any time he was let out of his cell. Although his recreation time was diminished, it was never completely taken away. At the end of his stay in Racine County Jail, Riker was still allowed out of his modified cell three days a week, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 21.) He was to be in belly chain and leg irons while out of the dayroom. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 17.) These conditions of confinement are fully compliant with the enunciated standards as to what is, and is not, cruel and unusual. Riker was not denied any basic human need, as he was still allowed out of his cell to shower and use the phon
for the same reasons he was initially placed there—safety risks to the prison community. 10 It is not difficult to see that Riker posed a threat to the general population, and his conduct warranted his stricter limiting conditions within administrative segregation. These stricter conditions were not punishment or retribution, but necessary measures to ensure the safety of the staff and other inmates. Riker was able to destroy property and even escape from his cell and belly chain, so the heightened conditions were necessary to make sure that Riker was physically unable to continue the property damage and potentially carry out one of his many threats to staff and other inmates. The restraint measures may have been a hardship for Riker, but they were necessary. Due to the necessity and purpose of the stricter confinement, and the periodic reviews throughout his segregations status, the court finds no violation of due process in Riker’s continued segregation status. The defendants have presented the measures taken to restrain Riker, but Riker claims that the multiple incident reports and continued misconduct warranting the restrictions are “lies and half truths.” (Docket No. 41.) Although he makes this conclusory assertion, he has not presented anything specific to place these facts in dispute. The court concludes that the conditions imposed on the plaintiff were not punishment and did not violate due process. B. Plaintiff’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim The court now looks to whether or not the conditions of the Riker’s confinement in administrative segregation amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Riker claims that the conditions of his confinement, most notably his restriction on recreation and yard time, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. As noted above, because Riker was a pretrial detainee, his claim is to be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment. The mere fact that pretrial detention interferes with a person’s desire to live comfortably an
Of course, Riker has a liberty interest in avoiding placement for no reason or for reasons that are baseless. This is where adherence to the jail policy regarding placement in administrative segregation is critical. Given the facts of this case, the policy was followed and Riker’s placement was warranted. There is no due process violation because Riker’s placement and subsequent conditions were reasonably related to a non-punitive governmental goal—safety to the general prison community, staff and inmates alike. Riker’s placement was not punishment for any conduct, but was done for his benefit and the benefit of his fellow inmates and the prison staff. The staff recognized the potential security and safety risks that could result from Riker’s expression of his racist attitudes within the ethnically and racially diverse general prison population. The staff was legitimately concerned that Riker’s continued presence in the general population would be the fuel to create an explosive situation, endangering the safety of inmates, staff, and Riker. The safety risks to the prison community presented by Riker’s attitudes and behavior far outweigh any liberty interest Riker may have had in avoiding placement. Since this is a legitimate goal and jail policy was followed, there is no violation of due process. Riker, along with his initial placement, also complains of his continued segregation status with limiting conditions, and continued denials of requests to be in general population. Riker was not deprived of any procedure since his status was reviewed periodically, every 10-14 days, and his continued requests were read and considered. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 22.) Wearing instructed Brown to conduct these reviews, and they were carried out. (Docket No. 38, ¶ 10.) As indicated, due process requires only informal, non-adversarial, periodic reviews of status. The decisions made thereafter not to return Riker to the general population are fully justified based on his actions damaging property damage and his threats to staff and other inmates while in administrative segregation. (See Docket No. 36, ¶ 23.) Continued placement in administrative segregation was warranted f
periodic review of the confinement. Alston v. DeBruyn, 13 F.3d 1036, 1042 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63 (1989); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 (1983)). A condition of confinement may be imposed on a pretrial detainee without violating the due process clause if it is reasonably related to a legitimate and non-punitive governmental goal; it may not be arbitrary or purposeless. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1428 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987)). Safety and preventing danger to the community are legitimate governmental goals that outweigh an individual’s liberty interest, depending upon the circumstances. Id. A pretrial detainee has a right to due process before conditions or restrictions are imposed upon him only if those restrictions or conditions amount to punishment of the detainee. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 (1979). In the case at hand, Riker was placed in administrative, non-disciplinary segregation immediately upon booking. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 3.) This was done for safety and security reasons that the jail staff identified during the preliminary internal investigations. (Docket No. 39, ¶ 4.) There is a liberty interest in avoiding placement in a status that is atypical, but there is nothing atypical about Riker’s placement. According to Racine County Jail policy, inmates are placed in administrative segregation for a multitude of reasons, including potential safety risks to the general population. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 25.) Also, according to the policy, a subjective evaluation of potential future risk is a reason for placement in administrative segregation. (Id.) The Racine County Jail staff, which identified and evaluated potential future risks regarding Riker in general population, acted in accordance with the jail’s own policy in placing Riker in administrative segregation. Riker was not deprived of any liberty interest he possessed because his placement was in accordance with the policy governing all persons detained at the jail. Riker was dealt with in accordance with that policy and therefore, his placement cannot be considered “atypical.”
RSS
Journal Times comments on various stories about Sean Riker:
October 20, 2012 6:33 pm may he die in prison.
btw, where's riker's little honey? i remember she was posting on JT defending him.
did she move on to her next psychopathic skinhead?
Sean and Nathan submitting a lawsuit together, how nice of them. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiwdc/3:2012cv00759/32672/5/?ts=1353515576
You two must be awfully busy:
Lindell, Nathaniel et al v. Jess, Cathy et al
Filed: October 15, 2012 as 3:2012cv00759
Plaintiffs: Nathaniel Allen Lindell and Sean A. Riker
Defendants: Cathy A. Jess and John Does
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Court:Seventh Circuit > Wisconsin > Western District Court
Type:P. Petitions > Civil Rights
Riker, Sean v. Overbo, Todd et al
Filed: September 24, 2012 as 3:2012cv00696
Plaintiff: Sean A. Riker
Defendants: Todd Overbo , Vicki J. Sebatian, Kelli R. Wellard-West, Timothy Haines, Ellie Ray and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Court:Seventh Circuit > Wisconsin > Western District Court
Type:P. Petitions > Civil Rights
347 (1981). Claims of cruel and unusual punishment require the plaintiff to show he has suffered an
objectively, sufficiently serious injury, and that prison staff inflicted the injury with deliberate
indifference. Framer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The standard for deliberate indifference
is that the defendant committed an act so dangerous that his knowledge of the risk can be inferred or
that the defendant knew of an impending harm. Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1427 (citing Miller v.
Neathery, 52 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 1995)). In terms of length of confinement with recreation
restrictions, more than 90 days of confinement without yard time is considered cruel and unusual,
but preventing access to the yard to protect prison staff from violent behavior is reasonable,
regardless of the time. Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001). “To confine in
‘solitary’ a prisoner who behaves like a wild beast whenever he is let out of his cell is the least cruel
measure . . . for dealing with such a person.” Id.
In the case at hand, Riker was not completely deprived of his time out of his cell. At the
onset of administrative segregation, Riker was allowed his mandatory one hour per day recreation
time. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 5.) This privilege was slowly taken away because of Riker’s violent acts,
threats, and property damage any time he was let out of his cell. Although his recreation time was
diminished, it was never completely taken away. At the end of his stay in Racine County Jail, Riker
was still allowed out of his modified cell three days a week, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
(Docket No. 36, ¶ 21.) He was to be in belly chain and leg irons while out of the dayroom. (Docket
No. 36, ¶ 17.) These conditions of confinement are fully compliant with the enunciated standards as
to what is, and is not, cruel and unusual. Riker was not denied any basic human need, as he was still
allowed out of his cell to shower and use the phon
same reasons he was initially placed there—safety risks to the prison community.
10
It is not difficult to see that Riker posed a threat to the general population, and his conduct
warranted his stricter limiting conditions within administrative segregation. These stricter
conditions were not punishment or retribution, but necessary measures to ensure the safety of the
staff and other inmates. Riker was able to destroy property and even escape from his cell and belly
chain, so the heightened conditions were necessary to make sure that Riker was physically unable to
continue the property damage and potentially carry out one of his many threats to staff and other
inmates. The restraint measures may have been a hardship for Riker, but they were necessary. Due
to the necessity and purpose of the stricter confinement, and the periodic reviews throughout his
segregations status, the court finds no violation of due process in Riker’s continued segregation
status.
The defendants have presented the measures taken to restrain Riker, but Riker claims that
the multiple incident reports and continued misconduct warranting the restrictions are “lies and half
truths.” (Docket No. 41.) Although he makes this conclusory assertion, he has not presented
anything specific to place these facts in dispute. The court concludes that the conditions imposed on
the plaintiff were not punishment and did not violate due process.
B. Plaintiff’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim
The court now looks to whether or not the conditions of the Riker’s confinement in
administrative segregation amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Riker claims that the
conditions of his confinement, most notably his restriction on recreation and yard time, subjected
him to cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. As noted above,
because Riker was a pretrial detainee, his claim is to be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The mere fact that pretrial detention interferes with a person’s desire to live comfortably an
are baseless. This is where adherence to the jail policy regarding placement in administrative
segregation is critical. Given the facts of this case, the policy was followed and Riker’s placement
was warranted. There is no due process violation because Riker’s placement and subsequent
conditions were reasonably related to a non-punitive governmental goal—safety to the general
prison community, staff and inmates alike. Riker’s placement was not punishment for any conduct,
but was done for his benefit and the benefit of his fellow inmates and the prison staff. The staff
recognized the potential security and safety risks that could result from Riker’s expression of his
racist attitudes within the ethnically and racially diverse general prison population. The staff was
legitimately concerned that Riker’s continued presence in the general population would be the fuel
to create an explosive situation, endangering the safety of inmates, staff, and Riker. The safety risks
to the prison community presented by Riker’s attitudes and behavior far outweigh any liberty
interest Riker may have had in avoiding placement. Since this is a legitimate goal and jail policy
was followed, there is no violation of due process.
Riker, along with his initial placement, also complains of his continued segregation status
with limiting conditions, and continued denials of requests to be in general population. Riker was
not deprived of any procedure since his status was reviewed periodically, every 10-14 days, and his
continued requests were read and considered. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 22.) Wearing instructed Brown to
conduct these reviews, and they were carried out. (Docket No. 38, ¶ 10.) As indicated, due process
requires only informal, non-adversarial, periodic reviews of status. The decisions made thereafter
not to return Riker to the general population are fully justified based on his actions damaging
property damage and his threats to staff and other inmates while in administrative segregation. (See
Docket No. 36, ¶ 23.) Continued placement in administrative segregation was warranted f
Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63 (1989); Hewitt v. Helms, 459
U.S. 460, 472 (1983)). A condition of confinement may be imposed on a pretrial detainee without
violating the due process clause if it is reasonably related to a legitimate and non-punitive
governmental goal; it may not be arbitrary or purposeless. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1428
(7th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987)). Safety and preventing
danger to the community are legitimate governmental goals that outweigh an individual’s liberty
interest, depending upon the circumstances. Id. A pretrial detainee has a right to due process before
conditions or restrictions are imposed upon him only if those restrictions or conditions amount to
punishment of the detainee. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 (1979).
In the case at hand, Riker was placed in administrative, non-disciplinary segregation
immediately upon booking. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 3.) This was done for safety and security reasons that
the jail staff identified during the preliminary internal investigations. (Docket No. 39, ¶ 4.) There is
a liberty interest in avoiding placement in a status that is atypical, but there is nothing atypical about
Riker’s placement. According to Racine County Jail policy, inmates are placed in administrative
segregation for a multitude of reasons, including potential safety risks to the general population.
(Docket No. 36, ¶ 25.) Also, according to the policy, a subjective evaluation of potential future risk
is a reason for placement in administrative segregation. (Id.) The Racine County Jail staff, which
identified and evaluated potential future risks regarding Riker in general population, acted in
accordance with the jail’s own policy in placing Riker in administrative segregation. Riker was not
deprived of any liberty interest he possessed because his placement was in accordance with the
policy governing all persons detained at the jail. Riker was dealt with in accordance with that policy
and therefore, his placement cannot be considered “atypical.”