Aug. 19, 2017
by William Goehler (author's profile)

Transcription

Between The Bars 8.11.17

TO BE, or not to be...(how does the rest of this Shakespearean sonnet go?). The following 23 page wake bears witness that BEING a test pilot to help prisoners, was a challenge for me to amend history and recover from my glee of insanity. Thank you all for this redeeming opportunity.

Very early in this SPO adventure I understood that I'd be digging up bones from my inverted flag campaign (cir. 1995-7), which prompted an agent provocateur type merchant of chaos to deliver explosives to my home while I was out earning wages. Explosives which exiled me to penal colonies twenty years now! Who was there in the house with you Debbie, when that idiot Quinn brought in that dog food bag of explosives - and why weren't you also arrested for possession? Has no one else ever wondered that?

The following is what Fabian Paladins mistake for Antagonistic Belligerence, as if a test pilot prefers fair weather and good roads.

1/23
STAT OF CALIFORNIA
INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL
CDCR 602 (REV. 08/09)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Side 1

IAB USE ONLY

Institution/Parole Region: MCSP-A
Log #: 15-01950
Category: 11
FOR STAFF USE ONLY

You may appeal any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) decision, action, condition, policy or regulation that has a material adverse effect upon your welfare and for which there is no other prescribed method of departmental review/remedy available. See California Code of Regulations, Title 15, (CCR) Section 3084.1. You must send this appeal and any supporting documents to the Appeals Coordinator (AC) within 30 calendar days of the event that lead to the filing of this appeal. If additional space is needed, only one CDCR Form 602-A will be accepted. Refer to CCR 3084 for further guidance with the appeal process. No reprisals will be taken for using the appeal process.

Appeal is subject to rejection if one row of text per line is exceeded. WRITE, PRINT, or TYPE CLEARLY in black or blue ink.

Name (Last, First):
Goehler, William

CDC Number:
K-77832

Unit/Cell Number:
A1/124

Assignment:
Landscaping
T=12-9

State briefly the subject of your appeal (Example: damaged TV, job removal, etc.): RLUIPA Denial of First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights U.S.Constit.

A. Explain your issue (if you need more space, use Section A of the CDCR 602-A): Appellant has been forbidden from receiving Scientology CD lectures per CDCR 22 dated 6/30/14 Response. On 8/13/14 Appellant began requesting RRC to Approve BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, the sole publisher of Scientology - cont. pg.2

B. Action requested (If you need more space, use Section B of the CDCR 602-A): Approve BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS as Religious Vendor permitting I/M to purchase CD lectures. Secondly, permit at least three times per week on DMS for Scientology Services. Thirdly; hold the mismanagement of Religious Affairs accountable

Supporting Documents: Refer to CCR 3084.4.
X Yes, I have attached supporting documents.
List supporting documents attached (e.g., CDC 1083, Inmate Property Inventory; CDC 128-G, Classification Chrono):
CDCR 602-A 18 pages supporting documents *
CDCR 602-G CDCR 22s/Memos/Letters
*Dated between 4-30-14 to 6-22-15

No, I have not attached any supporting documents. Reason:
[section crossed out]

Inmate/Parolee Signature: W Goehler (K.77832) Date Submitted: 7/11/15
By placing my initials in this box, I waive my right to receive an interview.

C. First Level - Staff Use Only Staff - Check One: Is CDCR 602-A Attached? X Yes No
This appeal has been:
Bypassed at the First Level of Review. Go to Section E.
Rejected (See attached letter for instruction) Date:____________ Date:____________ Date:_______________
Cancelled (See attached letter) Date:_______________
X Accepted at the First Level of Review
Assigned to: Cent. Srvcs.-FACA- (CPM) Title: AW Date Assigned: 7/27/15 Date Due: 8/26/15 ext. 10/07/15

First Level Responder: Complete a First Level response. Include Interviewer's name, title, interview date, location, and complete the section below.
Date of Interview:_______________________ Interview Location:___________________________
You appeal issue is: Granted Granted in Part Denied Other:__________________
See attached letter. If dissatisfied with First Level response, ? to Section D.

Interview: E [name blanked out]
Title: CPM
Signature: [signature blanked out]
Date Completed: 9/20/15

Reviewer: [name blanked out]
Title: AW
Signature: [signature blanked out]
Date received by AC: 10/07/15

AC Use Only
Date mailed/delivered to appellant 10,07,15

2/23 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL FORM ATTACHMENT
CDCR 602-A (08/09)
Side 1

IAB USE ONLY

Institution/Parole Region:
MCSP-A

Log #:
15-01950

Category:
11

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Attach this form to the CDCR 602, only if more space is needed. Only one CDCR 602-A may be used.
Appeal is subject to rejection if one row of text per line is exceeded. WRITE, PRINT, or TYPE CLEARLY in black or blue ink.

Name (Last, First):
GOEHLER, William

CDC Number:
K-77832

Unit/Cell Number:
A1/124

Assignment:
LANDSCAPING

A. Continuation of CDCR 602, Section A only (Explain your issue): material. Appellant has maintained CDCR22 communication line endeavouring to establish Scientology and obtain Approval to purchase religious CDs beginning from Appellants initial letter of intent dated 13 May 14, consistently through to the last CDCR22 dated 18 June 15, all the while receiving verbal assurances from both Imam Yonous and CPM Escobar that my issues would be heard at the next RRC, always "next month". Appellant has encountered this ambiguous assurance for a full year now, requiring this formal Appeal per (Person, 471F.3d732 - 7th Ccr 2006) - to effect change in policy. Appellant has written several letters/requests to the Chaplain/Review Committee, to receive more chapel time for those involved in Scientology in order to view DVD lectures/lessons that require indoor space consistent with other prisoners on A.Fac. who get religious grounds space to be used at any time. Appellant requests additional chapel time to be set on actual DMS (See Balawajder, 217 S.W. 3d 20 Tex App - Houston [1st Dist 2005]): Exaggerated response based on any security problems - this violating First Amendment and subverts appellants appreciation of the value of good behaviour/program participation in furtherance of rehabilitation; attempts to ban appellants from the same allotted time as the other religious groups is a violation of RLUIPA rights and is not a legitimate penoligical interest.

Inmate/Parolee Signature: W Goehler (K-77832) Date Submitted: 7/11/15

B. Continuation of CDCR 602, Section B only (Action requested): for denying Equal Protection to the same allotted time in the chapel classroom for religious study/viewing DVDs for Scientology members, as the other religious groups get; and grant appellants Punitive Damages of $10,000 and Compensatory Damages of $1,000 for the violations listed above thus farill.

Inmate/Parolee Signature: W Goehler (K-77832) Date Submitted: 7/11/15

3/23

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL
CDCR 602 (REV. 08/09)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Side 2

D. If you are dissatisfied with the First Level response, explain the reason below, attach supporting documents and submit to the Appeals Coordinator for processing within 30 calendar days of receipt of response. If you need more space, use Section D of the CDCR 602-A.

In the interest of justice, the additional Attachments (Addend "C"; Addend "D-1 through D-23"), pertinent to this case at bar - which the Appellant was prohibited from retrieving to clarify issues at FIR interview during Appellants work hours - are necessary in order to pursue USC 1983 civil litigation re RLUIPA/Equal Protection - Desperate Treatment claims (see: 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40834 Sessing v. Beard; 2015 U.S. Dist LEXIS 9132 Grisham v. Pritchard; 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 94064 Irvin v. Yates), as well as to debunk the systematically frustrating errors of FIR Findings. Firstly: Appellant submits the REGULATIONS governing this issue are: In addition to the noted CCR 3001, 3084. (cont)
Inmate/Parolee Signature: W. Goehler K-77832 Date Submitted: 11-1-15

E. Second Level - Staff Use Only Staff - Check One: Is CDCR 602-A Attached? /Yes No

This appeal has been:
By-passed at Second Level of Review. Go to Section G.
Rejected (See attached letter for instruction) Date:____________ Date:____________ Date:_____________ Date:_____________
Cancelled (See attached letter)
X Accepted at the Second Level of Review

Assigned to: M. Elorza Title: CC II Date Assigned: 11-4-15 Date Due: 12-17-15
Second Level Responder: Complete a Second Level response. If an interview at the Second Level is necessary, include interviewer's name and title, interview date and location, and complete the section below.

Date of Interview: N/A
Interview Location: Completed @ FLR

Your appeal issue is: Granted X Granted in Part Denied Other:____________
See attached letter. If dissatisfied with Second Level response complete Section E below.

Interview: [name blanked out] Title: N/A Signature: [signature blanked out] Date completed: 11-19-15
Reviewer: [name blanked out] Title: N/A Signature: [signature blanked out]

Date received by AC: 11/25/15

AC Use Only
Date mailed/delivered to appellant 11/25/15

F. If you are dissatisfied with the Second Level response, explain reason below; attach supporting documents and submit by mail for Third Level Review. It must be received within 30 calendar days of receipt of prior response. Mail to: Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001. If you need more space, use Section F of the CDCR 602-A.

Recognizing SAFE STREETS ACT provisions - 42 USC 3789 (c)(2000) to Federal Funding Recipients, please take heed; Pursuant to CCR15 3084.9(i)(1)(3)(4)(3)(6) Appeal Coordinator misconduct failing to acknowledge Appellant claim of Retribution, not meeting 3084.5(b)(4) standard, includes failing to weigh 3084.7 (a)(1)(2)(d)(1)(A), Exemption Escobar/Younus from conducting FLR, who were Principle Characters in all CDCR 22 Forms at issue, and attempting to nullify 3084.(h) inclusions to "substantiate claims". Aside from that, to again ?

Inmate/Parolee Signature: William Goehler K77832 Date Submitted: 12-3-15

G. Third Level - Staff Use Only

This appeal has been:
Rejected (See attached letter for instruction) Date:________ Date:_________ Date:_________ Date:_________ Date:_________
Cancelled (See attached letter) Date:_______________
Accepted at the Third Level of Review. Your appeal issue is Granted Granted in Part Denied Other:___________
See attached Third Level response.

Third Level Use Only
Date mailed/delivered to appellant ___/___/____

H. Request to Withdraw Appeal: I request that this appeal be withdrawn from further review because; State reason. (If withdrawal is conditional, list conditions.)

[section blank]

Inmate/Parolee Signature:____________________ Date:_______________
Print Staff Name:__________________ Title:___________ Signature:___________________ Date:___________

4/23

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL FORM ATTACHMENT
CDCR 602-A (08/09)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Side 2

D. Continuation of CDCR 602, Section D only (Dissatisfied with First Level response): (not 3054.2), also include CCR 3190 (b)(5)(4) Religious Property; 3210(c)(d) Religious Program; DOM Art.6 101060.1 Religious Policy/Scheduling/Use of Chapel - [line struck through] And now also includes CCR 3084.1(d): Appeal Reprisal (see CDCR22-8/16/15). Secondly: Pleasse have the records reflect that Appellant has never made any claims as to "Christian (sic) Scientology", as alluded to in FLR. Scientology happen to be a non-denominational/multi-faith religion known simply as Scientology. Thirdly: The obscure FLR findings re: "...which Scientology material in particular...has been addressed", and what exactly "I/M Goehler has been told by Chap. Younus...", are neither clarified nor documented anywhere in the many CDCR 2: Requests (see: 8/13/14 & 8/21/14, 6/11/15 and 12/5/14 Memo) requesting such clarification - initially made an issue per CDCR22 6/20/14 noting R+R "Policy" restricting religious CDs to Approved Religious Vendors currently posted upon R+R dist. note - Following FLR misinformed Decision granting Rel. Purchase "permitting R+R Policy - is followed". Appellant addressed this on CDCR22 10/15/15, which notes staff response 10/20/15, that nothing has changed with R+R policy.

Favorite

Replies Replies feed

We will print and mail your reply by . Guidelines

Other posts by this author

Subscribe

Get notifications when new letters or replies are posted!

Posts by William Goehler: RSS email me
Comments on “Untitled”: RSS email me
Featured posts: RSS email me
All Between the Bars posts: RSS