May 9, 2011

A Posting from Earl Pickering

by Earl Pickering


Personnel employed by the Cornell Corrections of Alaska inc. (1700 West loop South, Suite 1500, Houston, Texas, 77027) do not have any legal authority vested in them that would legally allow them to do any pat-searches, cell searches, property searches, or the touching or patting hands on Alaskan inmates—or any citizen—for any reason.

Cornell employees are not employed by any state or empowered in any official capacity by state law. If indeed a Cornell employee is a sworn-to-oath law enforcement or correctional officer, this officer may not exercise their sworn-to-oath official authority while employed by a private company such as Cornell Corrections. Personnel employed by Cornell Corrections are none other than private citizens with none other than private citizen rights. Sworn-to-oath law enforcement or correctional officer rights cannot extend to or be transferred to any private citizen for any reason.

A contract between the Alaska DOC and the Cornell Corrections of Alaska cannot justify or make legal any of the aforementioned actions by private citizens. Cornell Corrections employees are not entitled to qualified immunity from suits by prisoners charging a violation of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code. The US Supreme Court made this very clear—any Cornell Corrections employee that places their hands on the body of an inmate as a pat-search, does a cell search, or opens mail of an inmate has committed the violation of harassment, humiliation, and assault. A torture action is committed when a Cornell Corrections employee restrains an inmate with handcuffs or leg restraints, or uses pepper spraying or tasering.

In the event of a problem at this facility, law enforcement is to be summoned. Due to the fact that Cornell employees are totally untrained, unprofessional individuals are hired to serve the interests of corporate employees rather than the public mass for them to be in total violation of the law when committing any of the aforementioned actions. All actions are in violation of state and federal law, ACA standards of conduct, Alaska policy and procedure, and inmate rights.

An inmate making a verbal statement to a Cornell Corrections employee that a search or pat-search of them is illegal due to the fact that they are not sworn-to-oath correctional officers, or if any Cornell Corrections employee empowered in any official capacity by any state or federal law, is the inmate defending himself by using reasonable force.

Reasonable force an only be used if the Cornell Corrections employee does not immediately cease the illegal search action. Also charges of harassment, humiliation, assault, and torture may also be filed on the Cornell Corrections employee. Because Cornell Corrections employees do not enjoy nor are they entitled to qualified immunity, a suit is to be filed on the individual employee. Through cost-cutting and the fact that Cornell Corrections employees are not entitled to qualified immunity as sworn-to-oath corrections officers are, Cornell Corrections is not responsible for any attorney services are there the responsibility of the employee.


Replies Replies feed

Other posts by this author


Get notifications when new letters or replies are posted!

Posts by Earl Pickering: RSS email me
Comments on “A Posting from Earl Pickering”: RSS email me
Featured posts: RSS email me
All Between the Bars posts: RSS