Maydak Update Blog

FEDERAL COURT APPROVES SETTLEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES IN NEW YORK FEDERAL PRISON TORTURE CASE

2006-05-09T13:31:00.001-04:00

CONTACT: Keith Maydak
613 Cross Street
East McKeesport, PA 15035
kmpr@u2send.com
www.maydakupdate.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2006

FEDERAL COURT APPROVES SETTLEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES IN NEW YORK FEDERAL PRISON TORTURE CASE

Utica, New York
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

On May 2, 2006, United States District Judge David N. Hurd approved a settlement of $9,275.00 to be paid by the United States Government to Keith Maydak, 35 of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, based on a lawsuit filed in 1998 that alleged federal official at the Federal Correctional Institution at Ray Brook, New York, engaged in abuse constituting torture as retaliation for filing complaints.

The lawsuit alleged that, during 1998, Maydak was placed into a room without water facilities or food for five days while kept in handcuffs and shackles for allegedly “threatening the warden” with a lawsuit. During the period, Maydak only received a single apple and two pieces of bread as food. In addition, he was removed from the room only once to use toilet facilities.

After removal from restraints, federal officials placed Maydak in a small cell, designed for two people, with four other inmates (three of which had to sleep on the floor), for a six week period. As a result of the overcrowding, the floors were flooded with sewage and the food was spoiled, the lawsuit contended. Prison staff only allowed segregated inmates water for about ten minutes per day, resulting in dehydration.

“While I am pleased to settle this lawsuit without the need for a trial, the conditions at FCI Ray Brook have not improved. The federal prison continues to overcrowd and they do not allow inmates in segregation to flush their toilets despite the potential spread of hepatitis A, MRSA, and other bacterial based illnesses,” Maydak said. “People need to realize that the government isn’t just treating Iraqi prisoners inappropriately, but abuse is occurring by federal officials against United States citizens here at home.” Maydak attributes the problems to the lack of funding for prisons coupled with the increase in sentences for non-violent prisoners, which results in overcrowding and a strain on prison employees’ mental states.

The settlement also provided $1,000 to inmate Paul Lee who was not housed at the Ray Brook prison, but was at FCI Allenwood, Pennsylvania. Lee contended that federal agents violated his right to privacy protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 by giving false information to his investment broker. The settlement stipulates that the prison system will not interfere with inmates’ right to protect their legitimately obtained assets. “It took six years of litigation before the United States recognized that sabotaging inmates’ investments was improper, and I am pleased that the government chose to take responsibility.”

The settlement provides that the federal government does not admit to any wrongdoing.

Rogue Judge Sentences Keith Maydak to 24 Months After Delaying For 3 Years

2005-09-22T19:58:00.000-04:00

Rogue United States District Judge Alan N. Bloch sentenced Keith Maydak to 24 months in prison for a supervised release violation. The penalty constitutes the maximum allowed by law. However, Maydak already served 3 years in jail while the malicious judge arbitrarily delayed and postponed the proceedings. Under 18 USC 3585(b), Maydak should be released from jail as soon as the Federal Bureau of Prisons computes his time. "Judge Bloch is a maniac. In about 50 years, I'll meet back with him in hell," Maydak told maydakupdate.com.

Judge Bloch, 73, made no comment as to the reason why he imposed the sentence he did. Maydak looks forward to being released so he can implement his plan to take over the world's financial markets. (:

Lawless Judge Finally Schedules Sentencing Hearing For Keith Maydak

2005-09-10T09:36:00.000-04:00

Keith Maydak has been detained without a bail hearing since September 29, 2002, based on an alleged supervised release violation. However, the maximum term of punishment is two years. The lawless Senior United States District Judge Alan N. Bloch invented excuse after excuse to delay the hearing. Now that Maydak served nearly a year over the maximum, rogue Judge Bloch set a hearing for September 22, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the United States Courthouse at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Maydak told maydakupdate.com, "This old coot does whatever he pleases because of his bitterness about his age and deterioating mental capacity. Judge Bloch should have stopped hearing cases years ago, but he chooses to inflict his misery and warped views upon everyone in his courtroom. His lack of thought facilities requires his resignation."

Judge Bloch's motives for detaining Maydak included a civil suit and critical websites.

Extradition Subject Keith Maydak Petitions Canada's Minister of Justice To Protest Unlawful Confinement Ten Months Past The Maximum Sentence

2005-08-07T16:25:00.000-04:00

After detaining Keith Maydak for two years and one month for a probation-type violation that carries a maximum of two years, Canada nevertheless extradited him to the United States to "complete" the sentence. Despite assuring Canada that Maydak would receive credit for the detention, the United States courts refuse to sentence him or provide him a bail hearing.

Maydak lodged the following petition to Canada on August 7, 2005:

August 7, 2005

Hon. Irwin Cotler
Minister of Justice
c/o Department of Justice – Canada
International Assistance Group
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A OH8
via facsimile 1.613.957.8412 and 1.613.941.7865

In re: Extradition to the United States

Dear Justice Minister Cotler:

I am in receipt of the letter dated April 1, 2005, from Janet Henchey, General Counsel of the International Assistance Group, that responds to my petition to lodge a protest and / or to revoke the surrender order in this matter. Unfortunately, the communication neither formally denies my petition nor addresses the gravity of Canada’s deliberate indifference[1] to the present situation that includes indefinite detention and a complete deviation from normal procedure. As such, for the reasons discussed below, I am once again petitioning your office to lodge a protest with the United States of America and / or to revoke the surrender order. As I intend to seek judicial review from any failure to intervene and / or to transmit information to the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights,[2] I request an appealable decision by the Minister of Justice.

In fact, I allowed your office to surrender me prior to an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada based on the representations of your predecessor, and the information the Federal Prosecution Service provided to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, as to what would happen in terms of procedure and fairness on my return. However, as I predicted in my submissions to your predecessor, I am now being subjected to bizarre procedural actions that are not warranted under the statutory paradigm. Of course, the actions originate from the presiding judge who, as explained by the United States Marshals Service to Canadian immigration officials, sought protection because he believes, albeit erroneously, that I pose a threat to him.

I. Canada’s complicity in indefinite detention constituting cruel and unusual treatment
and punishment

In United States v. Johnson, [2002], 170 CCC(3d) 538 (Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeals held that detaining a person for longer than the prospective penalty on extradition is capable of being unjust or oppressive. Your predecessor distinguished this case by asserting that I would receive credit for the detention during the extradition proceedings. In addition, it was said that I could receive an additional year of supervised release.[3]

At the judicial review hearing, the panel of judges pointedly asked your counsel, Deborah Strachan, what would happen on return to the United States. Ms. Strachan unambiguously represented that a hearing would promptly occur and that I would be released shortly thereafter. Based on this, the Court of Appeal found my submissions that I would be subjected to arbitrary and prolonged confinement to be meritless.

Presently, I have been in the United States for over nine months, and have been detained, in totem, ten months past the maximum prospective sentence. No end to the detention appears in sight notwithstanding no basis in fact or law to justify the confinement.

While both Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States of America’s Constitution prohibit arbitrary detention and due process violations, it appears that the agents of the United States, along with your staff, are attempting to justify the indefinite detention by claiming that procedural protections (i.e., a formal sentencing hearing necessary to comport with due process) must occur prior to my release. Of course, such a position appears blatantly absurd especially in light of the fact that I have repeatedly stipulated to the maximum penalty.

I went so far as to waive my right to contest the supervised release allegations since no point exists in continuing to litigate a moot case. Nevertheless, I remain detained based on procedural gamesmanship.

The Court with precedental authority over my case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, made it clear that detaining a person longer than the maximum constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989). Canada’s Charter also prohibits this type of cruel treatment. Nevertheless, Canada remains willing to allow the United States to inflict the cruel and unusual treatment without protest.

II. The failure to comply with normal procedures to prevent the challenge to the arbitrary
detention

As in Canada, the United States Constitution and criminal statutory provisions require prompt detention hearings to test the lawfulness of confinement. This is no different in supervised release proceedings. Specifically, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 governs supervised release. Rule 32.1(a)(1) requires that a person held in custody for violating probation or supervised release must be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge must inform the person of his rights. See Rule 32.1(a)(3). At that time, a detention hearing occurs and the magistrate judge may release or detain the person under 18 USC §3143(a). See Rule 32.1(a)(6). If detained, a person may seek an expedited detention appeal pursuant to 18 USC §3145.[4]

In my case, United States Marshals lodged me in the Allegheny County Jail on October 30, 2004. On November 1, 2004, it was incumbent upon the Government to schedule a Rule 32.1 hearing. It failed to do so. None of the procedural protections found in Rule 32.1 occurred.

On November 19, 2004, I filed a formal objection with the Court outlining the failure to comply with these provisions. On November 30, 2004, I filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Maydak v. Warden, Allegheny County Jail, 04cv1818 (WDPA). At the December 16, 2004, hearing, I noted my continued objection to ignoring these provisions. To date, the presiding judge ignored the objections and he refuses to address the habeas corpus petition. The Government caused me to be moved from Pennsylvania to Ohio forcing me to file the habeas a second time.

I note that it is the Prosecution’s obligation to immediately schedule a detention hearing when it is realized that the time limits passed. See United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 US 711, 721 (1990) (“Once the Government discovers that the [bail] time limits have expired, it may ask for a prompt detention hearing …”).[5] Nevertheless, the Americans have still not taken this step.

Clearly, the deviation from the procedure in this type of case demonstrates that I am being treated differently in retaliation for my exercise of due process rights.

III. Disavowment of Representations to Canada

During my efforts to secure release, I pointed out the United States’ assurances that I would receive credit for the time spent in Canadian custody. The United States disavowed its representation and claimed that the courts could not look to the amount of time I spent in jail. The Office of United States Attorney[6] went so far as to argue that Paul Hull, the Assistant U.S. Attorney that made the representations, was not competent or authorized to do so. However, the United States certified to Canada that the information was accurate. While the American Government does not deny that I will eventually obtain credit, its actions are meant to vindictively extend my excessive and unlawful detention.

Canada must take the steps to require that the representations made to it constitute more than empty assurances to better the legal position of the United States. Moreover, since other supervised release cases will come before your office, it seems prudent to require the United States to provide truthful details of the situation.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the above, Canada must immediately take steps to protest the conduct of the United States. Otherwise, the integrity of the extradition process will be at risk. The procedural posture of this case clearly infringes upon my right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment that both Canada and the United States are responsible for. No justification exists to continue my detention and the failure of the United States to follow their own procedures demonstrates bad faith. As such, the surrender order must be rescinded immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith Maydak

cc: Deborah Strachan, counsel
Fax: 604.666.1599

[1] Indeed, I understand that the International Assistance Group continues to administer supervised release extradition cases on behalf of the United States of America. Therefore, I trust that the present gamesmanship should cause concerns in all supervised release extraditions.

[2] Any transmittal shall be pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Procedure under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment.
[3] This continues to constitute a fallacy. If additional supervised release is issued, it could result in additional imprisonment because the absolute maximum detention is two years. 18 USC §3583(e)(3). Apparently, the presiding judge intends to use any additional term to continue the game of prolonged detentions under the guise of waiting months for a hearing.
[4] In addition, I was entitled to a preliminary hearing as well. See Rule 32.1(b)(1)(A).

[5] Montalvo-Murillo did not deal with aggravated or intentional failures to hold a prompt detention hearing. My case appears both aggravated and intentional.

[6] The Office of United States Attorney made the disavowments in several cases including: 05-1401 (3d Cir. 2005); 05-1871 (3d Cir.); and 05cv388 (WDPA). Yet, this is the same office that made its representations to Canada which were repeated to the Court of Appeal.

Documents Now Available on NOFLYLIST.COM For Download

2005-07-26T13:00:00.000-04:00

NOFLYLIST.COM announces that the public can now download at no charge the FBI's "No Fly List" documents with redactions ... Go to NOFLYLIST.COM for further details.

Ohio Correctional Institution Inspection Committee Opens Formal Written Inquiry Into Overcrowding at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Institution

2005-05-31T13:12:00.000-04:00

Corrections Corporation of America (ticker: CXW) overcrowds inmate living units at its Northeast Ohio Correctional Institution by forcing inmates to sleep on the floor. Inmate Keith Maydak filed a complaint letter to the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, Ohio's legislative committee that inspects Ohio prisons.

"CCA earns profits by overcrowding its facilities and providing inmates with substandard services," Keith Maydak told maydakupdate.com. CCA is a public company trading on the New York Stock Exchange using the symbol CXW.

On May 31, 2005, the CIIC opened a formal written inquiry based on complaints from inmates. CIIC Investigator Richard Spence notified Maydak of the inquiry through the following communication:

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE

May 31, 2005

Dear Mr. Maydak:

Thank you for your letter that we recived on May 4, 2005. The Correctional Institution Inspection Committee (CIIC) is a legislative committee that inspects Ohio prisons and evaluates operations, conditions, programs, and the grievance procedure. The Committee may also make recommendations to assist in the development of any needed improvements. We welcome and appreciate communication from inmates and staff in Ohio prisons, for it helps us to identify problems or concerns that may need to be addressed.

Your letter listed the following concerns: 1) overcrowding in the housing, dining, and common areas, 2) understaffing by CCA to minimize expenses, 3) not utilizing all housing units to minimize expenses, 4) inadequate heating in the facility, and 5) high stress levels and increased altercations based on the previous factors.

Based on your input and the input of another inmate, the CIIC has submitted a formal written inquiry to Northeast Ohio Correctional Center Warden Robert Tapia for a formal response. If the response to the written inquiry is received prior to your departure from the facility, we will communicate information to you regarding your concerns.

Please understand that the CIIC has no decision-making authority in the above matters, but we remain interested in your situation and welcome future communication from you in that regard.

Sincerely,
/s/
Richard Spence
Inspector

Federal Court of Appeal Destroys Canadians' Right To Access Police Records

2005-05-20T17:06:00.001-04:00

To avoid providing citizens and residents of Canada with any law enforcement files, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") routinely call all their files "investigatory materials," which are not disclosed to Canadians under the Privacy Act. In 2004, Federal Court of Canada Justice Rouleau ended the practice by requiring the RCMP to provide evidence that the files involve actual investgative activity.

Unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeal for Canada rules that practically anything involves an investigation for purposes of withholding police files. Justice Nadon, Noel, and Malone held that the words "investigation" and "investigate" are broad in their meaning.

In the decision made on appeal by the RCMP in a Privacy Act lawsuit filed by Keith Maydak, the Court found that mere email exchanges monitoring Court proceedings constituted an "investigation." The Court stated that the RCMP monitored extradition proceedings to eventually arrest Maydak notwithstanding the fact that they already had him in custody. "I was in jail, so the RCMP's excuse was a ruse to trick the Court," Maydak told maydakupdate.com.

"The decision effectively eliminates the ability for Canadians to access RCMP records. As such, the RCMP will continue to run rampant over the rights of Canadians," Maydak said. In the United States, federal law enforcement records can be obtained through privacy legislation unless they prove to the courts that harm could occur. "This is one area of the law that Canada is far behind other countries. A secret police force is the most dangerous thing to have and Canada needs to update its Privacy Act to overrule their disappointing decision," Maydak explained.

A copy of the appellate decision in Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Maydak, 2005 FCA 186 (May 19, 2005), can be found at:
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2005/2005fca186.shtml

Judge Rouleau's opinion, docketed at Maydak v. Solicitor General of Canada, 2004 FCT 1171 (Aug. 24, 2004), can be viewed at:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1171.shtml

Contact: Keith Maydak
maydak@miserablemail.com

British Columbia, Canada, Prison System Begins Vegan Meals After Human Rights Complaint Filed By Detainees

2005-05-15T16:39:00.001-04:00

On May 14, 2005, attorneys for the British Columbia, Canada, Provincial prison system agreed to begin a vegan meal option in response to complaints filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Detainees Keith Maydak and Robert J. Anderson filed actions against the jail system when two separate facilities would not provide vegan meals and threatened to punish them if they refused to eat animal products. British Columbia prison authorities agreed to begin the meals by the end of May, 2005.

A vegan does not eat any animal products including meat, fish, egg, or cheese. Maydak and Anderson are religiously vegan based on their spiritual doctrine of not harming other living creatures. "I am pleased that the British Columbia prison authorities decided to respect human rights without the need to waste tax-payer resources on litigation," Maydak told maydakupdate.com. The vegan diet program will include tofu, soy hot dogs, and veggie burgers. "Civilized humans do not need to harm animals to eat; besides, vegan food tastes better," Robert Anderson told maydakupdate.com from the Kamloops British Columbia Correctional Centre.

Related news articles can be found at:

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2005/n15my05b.htm

More information can be found in the Vancouver Sun Article, "Human Rights Complaint Forces Prisons to Provide Vegan Meals".
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.html?id=7f14a9ad-1cd8-4191-b542-d51437ae047e

Contact: Keith Maydak
maydak@miserablemail.com

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Agree To Conduct Search For Records Relating To Dealings With Foreign Law Enforcement Agencies

2005-05-14T13:48:00.001-04:00

On July 26, 2004, Keith Maydak filed a request pursuant to the Canadian Access to Information Act to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seeking internal documents relating to procedures for sharing information with foreign law enforcement agencies including the United States.

Instead of processing the request by August 26, 2004, the RCMP deliberately waited until Canadian authorities allowed Maydak's extradition to the United States. On December 3, 2004, the RCMP advised Maydak that they considered his request abandoned because he was no longer in Canada.

Maydak immediately complained to the Honorable John M. Reid, P.C., the Information Commissioner of Canada, who launched an investigation into the RCMP's trickery. Realizing the inappropriateness of its actions, the RCMP agreed in May, 2005, to search for the records.

"It's unfortunate that the RCMP wastes its citizen's tax dollars by playing legal games instead of following the law, but I'm glad Canadian Information Commissioner John Reid intervened," Maydak told maydakupdate.com. Once Maydak receives a further response, he will publish it at http://www.maydakupdate.com.

The following is a copy of the text of the information in the Commissioner's letter:

Dear Mr. Maydak:

I write to report the results of our investigation of your complaint, made under the Access to Information Act (the Act), against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). In your request, you asked for copies of documentation pertaining to the exchanging of information between the RCMP and the government of the United States, and any internal documentation on the RCMP procedures for sharing information with foreign law enforcement agencies.

Your request was received by the RCMP Access to Information and Privacy section (ATIP) on July 26, 2004, making August 26 the due date for a timely response. As you are aware, the RCMP missed the deadline and found itself in a deemed-refusal situation as per section 10(3) of the Act. Our investigation revealed that your request was not tasked to the appropriate office primary interest (OPI) until September 3. That OPI subsequently advised the ATIP section on September 8 that a search of 16 hours would be required to locate the relevant records and the file was assigned to an analyst the following day to prepare a fee estimate letter. As you are aware, this response was not provided to you and on December 3, 2004, the RCMP advised you that they considered your request to be abandoned. On December 20, I received your complaint.

During the course of our investigation, the RCMP undertook to forward you a notice of fees required under the Act. I have reviewed the fee estimate and consider it to be properly costed in accordance to the Regulations.

Consequently, I consider your complaint as resolved.

Yours sincerely,
/s/
The Hon. John M. Reid, P.C.

References: Information Commissioner File 43828/001
RCMP File: 2004ATIP-10835

Contacts: Keith Maydak
Hon. John Reid, P.C., Information Commissioner 613-995-2410

British Columbia, Canada, Provincial Prison System Agrees to Provide Vegan Meals to Inmates

2005-05-14T08:22:00.000-04:00

In response to a Complaint filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal by Keith Maydak and Robert J. Anderson, the British Columbia Government agreed to provide vegan inmates with meals that meet their nutritional needs.

The Complaint was scheduled for a three-day trial in June, 2005, but Maydak and Anderson agreed to withdraw it.

More information can be found in the Vancouver Sun Article, "Human Rights Complaint Forces Prisons to Provide Vegan Meals".

Also see http://www.nupge.ca/news_2005/n15my05b.htm

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Jail Warden Ramon Rustin Admits Evicting Detainee For Filing Complaints

2005-05-13T18:02:00.001-04:00

On April 22, 2005, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Jail Warden Ramon Rustin directed the United States Marshals Service to remove detainee Keith Maydak from the facility. Maydak, indefinitely awaiting sentencing for a federal supervised release violation, formally lodged a Complaint to Warden Rustin. Rustin responded on May 12, 2005, by advising Maydak that the reasons for his transfer included his "continual utilization of a third party to promote meritless allegations against the jail." Rustin opined,"Since you continually voiced your displeasure with the accomodations within the Allegheny County Jail, it was deemed appropriate to place you in a federal institution whose surroundings and procedures may be more to your likening." Maydak told maydakupdate.com that, "Warden Rustin couldn't deal with my exposure of the filthy conditions in his jail which caused the death of two women."

Warden Rustin and Maydak took opposing views in media accounts of two female inmates at the Allegheny County Jail who died on March 21, 2005, from methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus ("MRSA"). The deaths and comments from Maydak were featured in various news articles. Warden Rustin suggested Maydak's "efforts were an attempt to detract Federal Authorities and gain public support relative to the criminal charges you're currently facing." However, Maydak told maydakupdate.com that he had absolutely no pending criminal charges and would be released as soon as he is afforded a hearing. U.S. Marshals moved Maydak to the privately owned Corrections Corporation of America facility at 2240 Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Ohio.

For stories about the MRSA deaths and the tortuous prison conditions at the Allegheny County Jail, link to:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_321390.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_323017.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_323981.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_323981.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_324372.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_324979.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_322295.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_324980.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_331529.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05102/486798.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05099/485525.stm

Contacts: Keith Maydak
maydak@miserablemail.com

Ramon Rustin, 412-350-2000
dguski@county.allegheny.pa.us

Keith Maydak Petitions Ohio Court for Release

2005-05-10T15:31:00.001-04:00

Keith Maydak, who has spent more than seven months past the maximum penalty in jail without a detention hearing today petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, for release.

A copy of the Petition follows:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH MAYDAK, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil No.
)
WARDEN, NORTHEAST OHIO )
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, AGENT OF THE )
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, )
)
Respondent. )

EMERGENCY PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 USC 2241 FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A DETENTION AND TRANSFER HEARING PURSUANT TO FED.R.CRIM.PROC. 32.1

Petitioner, Keith Maydak (“Maydak”), requests that this Court enter a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2241; or, in the alternative, for a detention and transfer hearing pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1:
parties
1. The petitioner is Keith Maydak. Maydak is presently incarcerated without any form of detention order in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center; 2240 Hubbard Road; Youngstown, Ohio 44505.
2. The respondent is the Warden of the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, agent of the United States Marshals Service. Respondent Warden maintains custody, albeit unlawfully, over Maydak.
background
3. On September 27, 2001, the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an arrest warrant that did not comply with the requirements and specifications of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4. That is, it did not list an offense but simply said, “Failure to Appear.” The warrant purportedly allowed the United States Marshals Service to arrest Maydak and bring him in front of a judicial officer. The warrant did not allow perpetual detention without a bail hearing. See United States v. Maydak, 93cr133 (WDPA).
4. On or about October 16, 2002, Respondent United States Attorney lodged a request to Canada for Maydak’s detention and extradition.
5. On November 4, 2002, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested Maydak as a result of the September 27, 2001 arrest warrant.
6. At the time of Maydak’s arrest at the request of Respondent United States Attorney, he was already detained on a Canadian immigration detention order. However, on November 7, 2002, Maydak prevailed on the immigration matter. From that point on, Maydak’s official detention resulted solely from the extradition request relating to the September 27, 2001, arrest warrant. No further immigration detention orders were issued. On the contrary, Maydak received a conditional departure order that provided him thirty days to leave Canada upon any denial of his claim for protection under the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
7. In December, 2002, Respondent United States Attorney formalized the extradition request and added a request related to the purported Contempt of Court Indictment docketed at 02-cr-269 (WDPA).
8. On April 30, 2003, the Canadian judiciary discharged Maydak with respect to the contempt of court matter, but committed him for extradition with respect to the completion of the supervised release.
9. On November 18, 2003, the Canadian Minister of Justice ordered Maydak surrendered to the United States for the completion of the supervised release. The Minister of Justice did not surrender Maydak for any further prosecution.
10. On September 22, 2004, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the surrender order and made it clear that the terms prohibited the prosecution of any other matter.
11. On October 29, 2004, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police surrendered Maydak to the United States Marshals Service. During the surrender process, Maydak requested that Respondent United States Marshal identify the basis for his detention. The agents of Respondent United States Marshal declined to identify the basis for Maydak’s detention. In fact, the agents neither notified Maydak that he was under arrest nor provided him with any information pertaining to his rights as a detained person.
12. On October 30, 2004, the agents of Respondent United States Marshal lodged Maydak in the Allegheny County Jail. The agents provided the Allegheny County Jail with a document entitled “Receipt for Federal Prisoners.”
13. The respondents failed to take Maydak in front of a judicial officer on November 1, 2004.
14. On November 2, 2004, United States District Judge Alan Bloch, ignoring the initial appearance requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, scheduled a supervised release “show cause” hearing for December 16, 2004.[1] Judge Bloch did not issue any order allowing the respondents to detain Maydak.
15. On November 10, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the contempt proceeding.
16. In November, 2004, Maydak filed objections to the failure to comply with any of the procedures required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, including the lack of a bail hearing.
17. On November 16, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney stated in a memorandum that Maydak was detained because he could not be “trusted” to appear for any hearing.
18. In late November, 2004, Maydak filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus based on the failure to comply with any of the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.Proc 32.1, including the lack of a bail hearing. Maydak v. Warden, Allegheny County Jail, 04cv1818 (WDPA).[2]
19. On December 16, 2004, a supervised release “show cause” hearing occurred before Judge Bloch. Maydak advised Bloch that he stood upon the 04cv1818 petition and objections to the Rule 32.1 violations. However, since he would be released immediately upon disposition regardless of the sentence, Maydak agreed not to contest the alleged violations on the merits.
20. Judge Bloch refused to sentence Maydak and directed the preparation of a PreSentence Investigation Report. Bloch scheduled sentencing for March 7, 2005. Bloch refused to discuss detention. He neither issued a detention order nor held a bail hearing.
21. On March 3, 2005, Bloch cancelled the sentencing hearing by claiming that an appeal from a civil habeas corpus matter he disposed of on December 16, 2004, divested him of jurisdiction even though Maydak made it clear on the notice of appeal that he did not appeal any interlocutory criminal matters.
22. In March, 2005, Maydak lodged a habeas corpus petition challenging his confinement beyond the prospective penalty. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Scirica, J.) assigned United States District Judge Christopher Conner of the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the proceeding. Maydak v. Warden, Allegheny County Jail, 05cv388 (WDPA). This petition raises issues outside the scope of this proceeding, and Judge Conner joined the Warden of the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center as a party.
23. On April 21, 2005, notwithstanding a §2241 habeas corpus appeal at 05-1401 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States Marshals Service moved Maydak to the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. But see Fed.R.App.Proc. 23 (prohibiting transfer).
24. To date, no appealable detention order exists allowing Maydak’s confinement in the Northern District of Ohio or elsewhere.
25. To date, no bail hearing occurred.
26. To date, no initial appearance, advisement of rights, or preliminary hearing occurred.
legal standards
27. “[A] probationer, like a parolee, is entitled to a preliminary and a final revocation hearing” to comport with due process. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778 (1973). This did not occur.
28. Pretrial detention requires a “timely judicial determination” of probable cause before or promptly after arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103, 125-126 (1975). A preliminary hearing is required “promptly after a parole violators arrest.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471 (1972). This did not occur.
29. A person held in custody for violating probation or supervised release must be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge. F.R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(1). This did not occur.
30. The magistrate judge must inform the person of the following: (A) the alleged violation of probation or supervised release; (B) the person’s right to retain counsel; and (C) the person’s right, if held in custody, to a preliminary hearing. F.R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(3). This did not occur.
31. The magistrate judge may release or detain the person under 18 USC 3143 (a) pending further proceedings. F. R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(6). This did not occur.
32. If a person is in custody for violating a condition of probation or supervised release, a magistrate judge must promptly conduct a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation occurred. F.R.Cr. P. 32.1 (b)(1)(A). This did not occur.
33. The court may... revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release... , except that a person whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve more than... 2 years in prison if the offense was a Class C or D felony. 18 USC 3583 (e)(3). This did not occur, although Judge Bloch purported to revoke the supervised release on December 16, 2004.
34. A person shall receive credit for the time spent in official detention that has not been credited against another sentence. 18 USC 3585 (b).
35. Maydak is entitled to a hearing before he is transferred outside of the Northern District of Ohio since no detention order exists. Fed.R.Crim.Proc 32 and 32.1.
due process violations
36. By causing Maydak to be detained at the Northeast Ohio Regional Correctional Center without a detention order, the respondent deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
37. By causing Maydak to be continuously detained without an initial appearance, the respondent deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
38. By failing to provide Maydak a bail hearing as required by law, the respondent deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
39. By failing to provide Maydak a preliminary hearing as required by law, the respondent deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
40. By causing Maydak to be detained in excess of the maximum statutory penalty, and knowing that Maydak will be released upon sentencing, the respondent’s failure to provide a bail hearing deprived Maydak of liberty without due process since no justification exists for his detention.
prejudice
41. In the present case, the indefinite detention without an appealable detention order or bail hearing prejudiced Maydak since he has been detained in excess of the maximum potential term of imprisonment and will be released upon sentencing.
42. The indefinite detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since the United States District Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the “show cause” hearing on December 16, 2004, since no preliminary hearing occurred.
43. The indefinite detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since the combination of procedural irregularities has affected the fairness of the underlying revocation proceeding.
44. The indefinite detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak because the conduct of the respondents is aggravated and intentional as demonstrated by the Government’s admission on November 16, 2004, that it took it upon itself to detain Maydak because he cannot be “trusted” to appear notwithstanding the fact that he faces no further lawful detention after revocation of supervised release. No legitimate purpose exists to detain a person indefinitely when they must be released immediately upon sentencing because they served well in excess of the prospective penalty.
WHEREFORE, based on the above, Petitioner Keith Maydak respectfully demands that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus discharging him from the custody of the respondent; or, in the alternative, that a bail hearing and transfer hearing be scheduled in the Northern District of Ohio forthwith.
Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Keith Maydak, 04904068
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505

PETITIONER

DECLARATION OF KEITH MAYDAK

I, Keith Maydak, declare under the penalty for perjury that the allegations contained in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 28 USC §1746.
Dated this _10th____ day of May, 2005.
_____________________________
Keith Maydak

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Keith Maydak, certify that I caused to be mailed a true copy of the foregoing to the following persons:
Warden, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505

United States Attorney
100 Federal Plaza East
Youngstown, OH 44503

United States Attorney
700 Grant Street, Suite 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

on this 10th day of May, 2005.
__________________________
Keith Maydak

[1] Supervised release “show cause” hearings occur in the Western District of Pennsylvania when the person is not detained for the violation.
[2] The 04cv1818 (WDPA) habeas corpus petition raises similar issues to those presented here. However, Maydak has been moved out of the district and his present custodian is not a respondent. Regardless, Judge Bloch refuses to act on the simple issue regarding non-compliance with any of the Rule 32.1 safeguards. It appears that his intention is to refuse to act until the matter becomes moot.

Keith Maydak Files Administrative Remedy with Allegheny County Oversight Board Based on Retaliation Transfer

2005-05-10T14:24:00.000-04:00

On or about Friday, April 22, 2005, the Allegheny County Pennsylvania Jail caused Keith Maydak to be removed from the Institution because he filed grievances and spoke to the press.

On May 2, 2005, Maydak filed a formal administrative remedy based on the First Amendment retaliation.

Maydak told MaydakUpdate.com, "Jails retaliate against anyone who speaks out about the conditions or misconduct. They are run like criminal gangs. I cannot allow Allegheny County to continue this pattern of misconduct. The ACJ needs an overhaul, and Warden Ramon Rustin has no intention of doing it."

See Letter below:

Keith Maydak
613 Cross Street
East McKeesport, PA 15035

May 9, 2005

Lieutenant Henne
Allegheny County Jail
950 Second Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Warden Ramon Rustin
Allegheny County Jail
950 Second Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Hon. Kim Berkeley Clark, Chairperson
Allegheny County Prison Oversight Board
Room 5065, 440 Ross Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

In re: Retaliatory Transfer

Gentlemen and Chairperson Berkeley Clark:

Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, please construe this communication as a request for administrative remedy with respect to the Allegheny County Jail’s retaliatory transfers. Specifically, in retaliation for grievances and public comments to the press, the ACJ contacted the United States Marshals Service and asked them to remove me from the facility.

The above referenced conduct constitutes First Amendment retaliation, which is actionable pursuant to 42 USC §1983. In the event I do not receive a satisfactory explanation, I will assume that the action occurred in bad faith.

I note that I previously put the Oversight Board and the ACJ Warden on notice that retaliatory actions occur and it appears that a deliberate indifference was taken.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith Maydak

Corrections Corporation of America Charges Detainee For "Asking Questions"

2005-05-09T13:58:00.000-04:00

As explained in the update on May 1, 2005, Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW) Northeast Ohio Correctional Center placed Keith Maydak into segregation after Unit Manager E. Stephenson threatened to "take [his] fucking tablet out of [his] hands."

On the same date, Unit Manager E. Stephenson swore out the following formal disciplinary report to justify continued placement in segregation:

NAME: KEITH MAYDAK

CCA#: 04904068

OFFENSE # AND TITLE: C-12 Hindering an Employee in the Performance of His Duties

DATE OF OFFENSE: 5/2/05 TIME OF OFFENSE: 090J

LOCATION OF OFFENSE: E Pod Day room

INMATE DETAINED FOR: Pre hearing detention

DESCRIPTION OF OFFENSE: On the above date and approx. time I, U/M Stephenson, was taking photos of inmates in E Pod when I/M Maydak, Keith # 04904068 asked what was the process for. I then explained to I/M Maydak that this was for his new identification card. I/M Maydak continued to ask questions and would not cooperate so I could complete the process in a timely manner.

STAFF INVOLVED: U/M E. Stephenson and U/M Grom

INMATE INVOLVED: MAYDAK, KEITH 04904068

REPORTING EMPLOYEE: E. Stephenson, Unit Manager

DATE AND TIME PREPARED: 5/2/05-1000

Of course, the report does not explain what the offending question was or how Maydak did not cooperate.

Maydak told MaydakUpdate.com, "This appears to be the CCA way -- retaliate any time a complaint is forthcoming. The inmates told me when I first arrived that they were scared to file grievances about the overcrowding and noise levels because CCA rectifies it by placement in segregation."

Inmates At The Allegheny County Jail Present Petition To Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Jail Oversight Board Outlining Deplorable Prison Conditions

2005-05-06T18:44:00.001-04:00

Over sixty inmates at the Allegheny County Jail submitted a petition to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Jail Oversight Board on April 25, 2005. The petition outlined deplorable unsanitary conditions at the Jail. "All we received in response has been forced one-minute showers in a filthy and flooded wash area along with threats of retaliation," ACJ Inmate Frederick H. Banks told maydakupdate.com.

The inmates lodged the petition in late April, 2005, and hoped for a response in May, 2005. However, no response came. "We were informed that further complaints would result in worse conditions," Banks said.

Two women died at the Allegheny County Jail on March 21, 2005, from Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ("MRSA") from the unsanitary conditions at the facility.

The petition reads:

To the Warden and the
Allegheny County Oversight Board

PETITION

Recently, the inmates learned of the deaths of two women at the Allegheny County Jail as a result of MRSA. Newspaper accounts show the defendants’ making jokes about inmates stealing underwear, and County Health Officials challenging the veracity of inmate complaints regarding the prison conditions.

On April 18, 2005, jail officials attempted to push the blame onto inmates by imposing “mandatory” showering on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the morning. This “solution” is absurd since most inmates shower every day and the bulk showering increased the hygiene problem since the water accumulates outside the area because of inadequate drainage and peeling paint.

Since the administration failed to implement logical improvements to sanitation, we are formally advising the Board of the specific problems:

1. Inmates are not being provided any information about MRSA or what to look for;

2. Inmates are not being given tests for MRSA despite having suspicious lesions. Medical personnel “slough off” the lesions as “probably” being “spider bites,” a fungus, pimples, ringworm, or other ambiguous retorts.

3. Nurses who are not licensed to practice medicine are tasked with functions that should be assigned to a physician or physician’s assistant.

4. The inmate workers are not given sufficient cleaning supplies.

5. Inmates have extremely limited access to cleaning supplies.

6. A single mop is present for 95 people. It is passed from room to room. It smells like mold and leaves a stench in the air. The same water is used for each room because of limitations on chemicals.

7. Inmates are not provided clean rags or paper towels for cleaning.

8. A single toilet brush serves 95 people.

9. The washing machine leaks (probably because staff use a 20 pound chain to lock the door).

10. The ventilation system is not being maintained. In some rooms, no air circulates. In others, so much air comes out that it must be covered.

11. Many of the showers do not work at all, and no plans are in place to repair them.

12. Malfunctioning shower heads spray water outside the showers and it lays on the floor because of inadequate drainage and a non-flat rigid floor.

13. The roofs of the upper shower area, which cannot be cleaned because of a rusty metal guard, are caked with mold, dirt, and bacteria. Both the upper and lower shower roofs are water damaged. Some of the lights shorted out or burnt out as a result.

14. Because the walls are made from painted block, instead of a smooth tile, the cleaners cannot maintain them. Dirt and crud build up in the cracks and beneath the peeling paint. They cannot be cleaned. The showers must be remodeled with tile.

15. "Split feeds," which occur because of overcrowding, result in the food sitting out for hours. Additional chairs should be available for a single meal session.

16. Napkins should be given with meals, as should clean eating utensils.

17. Many tables do not have tops (they peeled off). These tables cannot be cleaned since rigid wood is showing. The broken tables must be repaired.

18. Some toilets shut off for one hour if flushed more than once. As a result, feces and urine lays in the bowl.

19. The lockers are rusting out making cleaning difficult.

20. Inmates cannot buy the products they need to cut their nails or floss their teeth.

21. Inmates are not issued underclothes by the jail upon arrival.

22. Inmates receive a single towel that stays wet all the time (because it is never given a chance to dry). It can be washed only if the inmate has a laundry bag.

23. Inmates must pay $8.00 for a laundry bag. Otherwise, they cannot wash their undergarments (which they must buy as well).

24. The unit laundry machine, which just recently began working again, is packed full of laundry bags, yet only a small amount of soap is used. Similarly, the dryer is overfilled and the clothes are returned wet.

25. Only one roll of (500 pieces) toilet paper is issued to each inmate per week. The paper must be used for everything including runny noses, spills, cleaning the single spoon and cup, and use of the toilet. Even when inmates are ill, they cannot secure additional paper.

26. Inmates are being refused access to their medical records, but see 28 Pa.Code 563.11, and cannot learn about their conditions. Furthermore, when given medication, inmates are disallowed access to the informational brochure contained therein.

27. Inmates are provided a dirty green sponge to sleep on. The inmates with plastic covered mattresses noticed cracking from the age of the mattress. Prison officials are not replacing worn mattresses.

28. Inmates are given a single sheet and a single blanket. Because of this, most inmates sleep in their uniform to keep warm. Common sense dictates that two sheets be provided since one must wrap the mattress.

29. Inmates are given pillows and they must sleep with their face directly on the dirty green sponge.

30. A sign remains on the wall claiming that inmates are charged $2.00 for sick call and $3.00 to see a doctor. If this is not the case, inmates need to be informed.

31. When new inmates arrive, they are placed for several weeks on a classification unit (4A or 4B). These inmates cannot buy hygiene items or wash their clothes. They cannot buy shampoo, deodorant, shower shoes, toothpaste, etc. After they are moved to a normal unit, they must wait until commissary day to buy hygiene.

/s/

The petition was signed by Milton Morgan, Frederick Banks, Keith Maydak, Robert Smith, and 59 other inmates. (Maydak was transferred from the Jail on April 22, 2005, because of his complaints).

Contact: Keith Maydak
maydak@miserablemail.com

Detainee Petitions Ohio Correctional Institution Inspection Committee to End Corrections Corporation of America's Overcrowded Conditions

2005-05-04T09:30:00.000-04:00

Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW), a publicly traded corporation, has began a policy of triple bunking and overcrowding to reduce expenses. However, Keith Maydak petitioned the Ohio Correctional Institution Inspection Committee to end the unnecessary overcrowding. "It's a shame that a large company has chosen to squeeze people into a tiny area solely to advance their greedy profit oriented goals," Maydak said.

The letter to the CIIC follows:

Keith Maydak, 04904-068
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505-3198

May 3, 2005

Correctional Institution Inspection Committee
Riffe Center, 8th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
via facsimile 614.466.6929

In re: Corrections Corp. of America – Northeast Ohio Correctional Center

To the Committee:

Pursuant to §103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, I am requesting that your office conduct an inspection of the overcrowded conditions at the Corrections Corporation of America’s Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. All administrative remedies regarding this situation were exhausted.

Notwithstanding CCA’s designation of the facility as double-celled, the for-profit enterprise is placing three men in most rooms on the bottom level. The third person is lodged on the floor next to the toilet and sink. The occupants of the cell barely have any room to move, and it is extremely difficult to use the toilet facilities with an inmate sitting or laying next to it. The overcrowded conditions make sanitation difficult. Furthermore, the inmate sleeping on the floor is extremely cold because of inadequate heating in the facility. Inmates are housed in this condition for approximately 15 hours per day.

In addition to being overcrowding in the cell, CCA’s actions created an extremely overcrowded living area, especially during meal times. The inmates are cramped and not enough seats are available. The cramped common areas make it impossible to watch television or concentrate during letter writing and drafting of legal pleadings. This, of course, resulted in a high stress level and increased altercations.

The overcrowding did not come out of necessity. Rather, CCA appears to be attempting to minimize expenses by understaffing the Institution. Indeed, many dormitories are presently empty and could house the excess inmates. The fact that CCA’s choice to exceed the occupancy limits in the housing units originates in a desire to make a profit demonstrates its inability to understand its obligations in this area.

As such, I trust your office will review the inappropriate overcrowding at the CCA Northeast Ohio Correctional Center.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith Maydak

Corrections Corporation of America Retaliates for Writing Down Name of Employee

2005-05-01T16:58:00.000-04:00

On May 1, 2005, an inmate at the Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW) Northeast Ohio Correctional Center committed suicide by cutting his throat. Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") staff knew that the inmate was depressed and he had previously attempted to harm himself. Nevertheless, CCA placed the inmate in general population within an overcrowded 84 square foot three-man room. CCA staff did not provide the inmate with any additional observation or positive mental reinforcement. As a result, the inmate was found dead during the breakfast feed on Sunday morning.

On Monday morning May 2, 2005, CCA brought in several employees with video equipment. CCA did not advise the inmates of the purpose for the event. The inmates, already upset by the suicide caused from CCA's negligence, believed that the camera was brought for the purpose of interviewing inmates to determine whether they knew anything about the suicide.

With the above in mind, Keith Maydak asked a CCA employee what the purpose was for the photograph shoot. Maydak also asked the employee for his name because his nametag was hidden. The CCA employee became upset and directed Maydak to speak to a Correctional Officer ("CO"). The CO advised Maydak that the photographs were being taken for new identification cards and not part of any interview. The CO had also advised Maydak that she did not know the name of the person he spoke with. She directed Maydak to ask a Unit Manager for the name.

When Maydak asked the Unit Manager to identify the CCA employee who refused to give his name, the Unit Manager shouted, "Would you like me to tear that fuckin' tablet out of your hand?" When Maydak asked the Unit Manager for his name, he told Maydak that he would be taken to the "fuckin' hole" if he did not stop writing. Maydak complied with the directive to stop writing. However, Maydak asked the CO to identify the Unit Manager. When the Unit Manager overheard the conversation, he directed the officer to place Maydak in the hallway to be escorted to segregation.

While in the hallway, the CO advised Maydak that the staff member who threatened him was Unit Manager E. Stephenson.

Maydak explained to MaydakUpdate.com that, "CCA apparently does not enforce its no retaliation policy. No justification existed for Unit Manager E. Stephenson to threaten or retaliate simply because I was documenting the occurrence."

Maydak has filed a formal grievance with CCA because of the First Amendment retaliation.

Judge Orders Government to Justify Continued Detention

2005-04-29T09:40:00.000-04:00

Special designated Federal Judge Christopher C. Conner, visiting from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, directed the Government, on April 28, 2005, to justify Keith Maydak's continued detention. Judge Conner directed a response to the following petition by May 18, 2005. He also added the Warden of the privately-owned Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW) Northeast Ohio Correctional Center as a party. The case is docketed at 05cv388 in the Pittsburgh Federal Court. Judge Conner was appointed to handle the case by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Anthony J. Scirica. Here is a copy of the Emergency Petition for Habeas Corpus under 05cv388.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEITH MAYDAK, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
v. ) related to 93cr133
)
WARDEN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL; )
UNITED STATES MARSHAL; and )
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, )
)
Respondents. )
)

PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 USC 2241 FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, Keith Maydak (“Maydak”), requests that this Court enter a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2241:
parties
1. The petitioner is Keith Maydak. Maydak is presently detained at the Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2. The first respondent is the Warden of the Allegheny County Jail. Respondent Warden maintains custody, albeit unlawfully, over Maydak.
3. The second respondent is the United States Marshal for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Respondent United States Marshal lodged Maydak into the Allegheny County Jail without a judicial detention order. Respondent United States Marshal created a document entitled “detainer” and advised Respondent Warden that it constituted the basis for Maydak’s detention.
4. The third respondent is the United States Attorney. Respondent United States Attorney, through her agent, Paul Hull, caused the continued detention of Maydak by instructing Respondent United States Marshal to keep Maydak lodged in the Allegheny County Jail. On November 16, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney claimed that Maydak’s detention existed because he could not be “trusted” to appear for Court on a supervised release revocation hearing. However, Respondent United States Attorney neither sought nor received a detention order from a judicial officer.
background
5. On September 27, 2001, the Clerk of the United States District Court issued an arrest warrant that did not comply with the requirements and specifications of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4. The warrant purportedly allowed Respondent United States Marshal to arrest Maydak and bring him in front of a judicial officer.
6. On or about October 16, 2002, Respondent United States Attorney lodged a request to Canada for Maydak’s detention and extradition.
7. On November 4, 2002, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested Maydak as a result of the September 27, 2001 arrest warrant.
8. At the time of Maydak’s arrest at the request of Respondent United States Attorney, he was already detained on a Canadian immigration detention order. However, on November 7, 2002, Maydak prevailed on the immigration matter. From that point on, Maydak’s official detention resulted solely from the extradition request relating to the September 27, 2001, arrest warrant. No further immigration detention orders were issued. On the contrary, Maydak received a conditional departure order that provided him thirty days to leave Canada upon any denial of his claim for protection under the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
9. In December, 2002, Respondent United States Attorney formalized the extradition request and added a request related to the purported Contempt of Court Indictment docketed at 02-cr-269 (WDPA).
10. On April 30, 2003, the Canadian judiciary discharged Maydak with respect to the contempt of court matter, but committed him for extradition with respect to the completion of the supervised release.
11. On November 18, 2003, the Canadian Minister of Justice ordered Maydak surrendered to the United States for the completion of the supervised release. The Minister of Justice did not surrender Maydak for any further prosecution.
12. On September 22, 2004, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the surrender order and made it clear that the terms prohibited the prosecution of any other matter.
13. On October 29, 2004, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police surrendered Maydak to the United States Marshals Service. During the surrender process, Maydak requested that Respondent United States Marshal identify the basis for his detention. The agents of Respondent United States Marshal declined to identify the basis for Maydak’s detention. In fact, the agents neither notified Maydak that he was under arrest nor provided him with any information pertaining to his rights as a detained person.
14. On October 30, 2004, the agents of Respondent United States Marshal lodged Maydak in the Allegheny County Jail. The agents provided Respondent Warden with a document entitled “detainer.”
15. The respondents failed to take Maydak in front of a judicial officer on November 1, 2004.
16. On November 2, 2004, United States District Judge Alan Bloch, presumably assuming that the Government would comply with the initial appearance requirements, scheduled a final revocation hearing for December 16, 2004. Judge Bloch did not issue any order allowing the respondents to detain Maydak.
17. On November 10, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the contempt proceeding.
18. On November 16, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney stated in a memorandum that Maydak was detained because he could not be “trusted” to appear for any hearing.
legal standards
19. “[A] probationer, like a parolee, is entitled to a preliminary and a final revocation hearing” to comport with due process. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778 (1973).
20. Pretrial detention requires a “timely judicial determination” of probable cause before or promptly after arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103, 125-126 (1975). A preliminary hearing is required “promptly after a parole violators arrest.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471 (1972).
21. A person held in custody for violating probation or supervised release must be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge. F.R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(1).
22. The magistrate judge must inform the person of the following: (A) the alleged violation of probation or supervised release; (B) the person’s right to retain counsel; and (C) the person’s right, if held in custody, to a preliminary hearing. F.R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(3).
23. The magistrate judge may release or detain the person under 18 USC 3143 (a) pending further proceedings. F. R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(6).
24. If a person is in custody for violating a condition of probation or supervised release, a magistrate judge must promptly conduct a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation occurred. F.R.Cr. P. 32.1 (b)(1)(A).
25. The court may... revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release... , except that a person whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve more than... 2 years in prison if the offense was a Class C or D felony. 18 USC 3583 (e)(3).
26. A person shall receive credit for the time spent in official detention that has not been credited against another sentence. 18 USC 3585 (b).
due process violations
27. By causing Maydak to be continuously detained without an initial appearance or judicial order, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
28. By failing to provide Maydak a bail hearing as required by law, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
29. By failing to provide Maydak a preliminary hearing as required by law, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
30. By causing Maydak to be detained in excess of the maximum statutory penalty, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
prejudice
31. In the present case, the detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since he has been detained in excess of the maximum potential term of imprisonment.
32. The detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since the District Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the final revocation hearing on December 16, 2004, since no preliminary hearing occurred.
33. The detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since the combination of procedural irregularities has affected the fairness of the underlying revocation proceeding.
34. The detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak because the conduct of the respondents is aggravated and intentional as demonstrated by the Government’s admission on November 16, 2004, that it detained Maydak because he cannot be “trusted” to appear notwithstanding the fact that he faces no further lawful detention after revocation of supervised release.
WHEREFORE, based on the above, Petitioner Keith Maydak respectfully demands that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus discharging him from the custody of the respondents and dismissing the revocation proceeding for prejudicial violations of due process.

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Keith Maydak

PETITIONER

DECLARATION OF KEITH MAYDAK

I, Keith Maydak, declare under the penalty for perjury that the allegations contained in the foregoing Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 28 USC 1746.

______________________________ Keith Maydak

CCA (ticker CXW) Finally Provides Food

2005-04-28T20:17:00.000-04:00

Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") (ticker CXW), after 24 written requests, finally provided vegan meals to Keith Maydak. CCA allowed Maydak to go without food or meals from the morning of Friday, April 22, 2005, until the evening meal on Thursday, April 28, 2005.

Unlawfully confined detainee petitions Ohio federal magistrate for hearing

2005-04-28T13:31:00.000-04:00

Keith Maydak, who has been detained since September 29, 2002 for a "supervised release violation," that carries a maximum term of two years in jail, petitioned an Ohio Federal Court today for a hearing. Specifically, Maydak has been detained seven months past his potential period of incarceration, but United States District Judge Alan Bloch of the Western District of Pennsylvania refuses to hold a final hearing. On April 22, 2005, Corrections Corporation of America officers picked Maydak up from Pittsburgh and moved him to Ohio. This gave him the opportunity to file a petition to a Ohio Federal Magistrate. See letter below:

Keith Maydak, # 04904-068
CCA NEOCC
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505

April 27, 2005

Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of Ohio
229 Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building & United States Court House
125 Market Street
Youngstown, Ohio 44503-1787

In re: United States v. Maydak, 93cr133 (WDPA)

Dear Magistrate Judge Limbert:

Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1, I am requesting that you schedule a bail hearing as I am in this district and I object to any transfer back to the Western District of Pennsylvania. As shown below, I am entitled to an immediate detention hearing.

Specifically, in September, 2001, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an arrest warrant that merely said “failure to appear” as the offense. However, the matter related to a supervised release violation. On September 29, 2002, I was arrested in Canada and the United States requested my extradition. After litigation wherein the United States admitted I would receive credit for all of my detention in Canada, I was returned to the Western District of Pennsylvania on October 30, 2004 – but the maximum sentence is two years for the violation. 18 USC §3583(e)(3).
Although the arrest warrant directed the U.S. Marshals to take me in front of a judge, they did not. As such, I filed objections in the 93cr133 (WDPA) case objecting to the Failure to Comply with Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1. I also filed a habeas corpus at Maydak v. Warden, Allegheny County Jail, 04cv1818 (WDPA)[1] because no detention order exists and the Rule 32.1 violations are prejudicial since I served the maximum sentence.

On December 16, 2004, the 93cr133 (WDPA) court held a supervised release revocation hearing at which I stated through counsel that I did not wish to contest the matter except for my objections filed about Rule 32.1. The district court ordered a Presentence Report and scheduled my sentencing for March 7, 2005. The district court refused to discuss detention at all. No bail order was held and no detention order was issued.

On March 4, 2005, the district court claimed that it lacked jurisdiction to either sentence me or release me because I filed a habeas corpus appeal relating to a previous habeas that I filed while in Canada.

On April 21, 2005, the United States Marshals Service directed Corrections Corporation of America to lodge me at the above address. As such, I am now in the jurisdiction of your court and I am entitled to the bail hearing in front of a magistrate judge as mandated by Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1. I also object to any transfer back to the Western District of Pennsylvania since I will demonstrate that my custody is unlawful because I have spent seven months over my statutory maximum prospective sentence pursuant to 18 USC §3583(e)(3) and because my term of supervised release expired by virtue of the plain language of 18 USC §3624(e).

Based on the above, I request a prompt detention hearing and a transfer hearing where I can present evidence and arguments demonstrating that I should not be transferred back to the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith Maydak

cc: Clerk of Court, Northern District of Ohio
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio

[1] The Judge apparently refuses to rule on the 04cv1818 (WDPA) habeas. I also filed a second habeas at 05cv388 (WDPA) about my detention, but Chief Judge Donetta Ambrose petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to move it to another district.

Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW) ignores requests for religious vegan diet

2005-04-28T12:02:00.000-04:00

On Friday April 22, 2005, Keith Maydak was transferred into the custody of Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA")(NYSE: CWX). He immediately requested vegan meals for religious and allergy reasons. The inmate handbook states, "request for a religious diet or no meat alternate must be submitted to the Chaplain. This request must include religious preference and dietary needs." Nevertheless, CCA has refused to provide Maydak with the requested vegan meal. The following text is a FAX MEMO sent to the warden:

FAX MEMO

DATE: April 26, 2005

FROM: Keith Maydak, # 04904-068

TO: Robert Tapia, Warden via facsimile 1.330.746.3318

cc: CCA Corporate Headquarters via facsimile 1.615.263.3140

RE: Not fed since arrival on April 22, 2005

Since arrival on April 22, 2005, CCA has failed to provide me vegan meals which I can accept. Both medical and chaplain staff ignored my requests: my requests, complaints, and sick call slips. The officers have been calling, but nobody will respond. The food service manager states that she can provide the meals easily, but is not allowed to do so until somebody approves it. I already have ongoing litigation about this, and I would prefer not to add CCA as a party. The attached injunction demonstrates my meal requirements, to wit, no milk, no egg, and no animal flesh. In addition, a simple Google search will reveal that I cannot accept animal products (search for Maydak and vegan).

I trust you will look into this matter without the need for further correspondence. If I do not receive an acknowledgement, I will assume you did not receive this communication and my paralegal will send it again.

Maydak

2005-04-27T18:24:00.000-04:00

More information coming soon...