Cause célèbre

CAUSE CELEBES copyright 2015 by Edward Falmore Hopefully, you have read by now my very first submission to this website entitled "Total Exoneration.5' Hopefully, you have looked into the factual claims outlined in "Total Exoneration” and found them to be accurate. At this point I am pursuing a habeas corpus action in Coffee County Superior Court in Georgia to address claims set forth in "Total Exoneration." Yet this second submission is just as newsworthy as its predecessor* The conditions which I speak of in "Total Exoneration" and which 1 am addressing in "Cause Celebre” if they had been, perpetrated up north, The Mew- York Times and The Hew York Post would have exposed these deeds in. the sunlight of public opinion. The hue and cry would have been echoed far and near. However, these things happened way, down South, in Dixie, So, historically they have been concealed and will continue to go unnoticed unless an organ such, as the Araerican Prison Writers Archive and discerning inmates decide that enough is enough I The facts which I posit in this article are accurate to the best of my abilities, I have supplied numbers and dates wherever possible, I have used letters in. place of names of persons involved. Herein is my story: I have been writing dramas, novels and songs for the past dozen years. That is what inteligent men do in prison. The fact is that this is- the only thing one can concievably do behind bars: Read, and write, and think! I have been incarcerated in either jail or prison since 22 October 1997, At not time since that date have 1 not been in police custody, I had written dramatic pieces and composed corresponding song lyrics and melodies. Thus in October, 2012 I had monies deducted from my prison account and forwarded to the United States Library of Congress, the Office of Copyright, These funds were sent posthaste, aa the record reflects* The prison. Coffee Correctional Facility, held the mall for over seventyfiv* {75} days and records reflect that, monies were immediately transmitted to the Office of Copyright, Readers read carefully* Since I will discuss several separate instances where my rights have been abridged, 1 will do so carefully and competently SO' m mt to confuse my readers. The first instance deal with the 85 song lyrics. Mow the first matter is the prismas withholding ay intellectual properties, the eighty-five [85] song lyrics for seventy-five [75'j days# On 31 October 2012 a check numbered 98170 wan withdrawn from ®y account on a Department of Corrections instrument. Mm, D.H., the erstwhile counselor, took t„ha package of song lyrics addressed by m to the Library of Congress, United States Oflie# of Copyright with sufficient postage affixed thereon to the institution1* mailroom am! gave it to the erstwhile mailroom clerk, Ms. B.M, Mrs* B.H never notified Me that the mailroom was holding the mail 1 addressed to the United States Office of Copyright. At that time I had adequate funds on my account. The money was withdrawn expeditiously, I spoke with the warden face-to-face. Then 1 followed up with a note on an “Inmate Request Fora” to then Warden Grady Perry. Mrs. L.B* responded for the warden stating that Mrs. B.il. had been directed to insure taht the mil g«t out m quickly as possible. This was written bgafore Thanksgiving, 2012, The ©ail left after Mew leers Day, 2013! Why did it take Coffee Correct tonal facility, a private concern,, under,: x seventy-five days to send my mail off to the United States Office of Copyright where it was addressed? Why did Coffee Correctional facility, a private concern, under the aegis of Corrections Corporation of America withhold legitimate sail in con3 traventlon of the law and the agency’s standard operating procedures? Why did Coffee Correctional facility telephone the Library of Congress, United State® Office of Copyright when I the author/composer of the eightyfive {83] song lyrics never gave them authorization to call the Library of Congress, United States Office of Copyright on ray behalf or with regard to my intellectual properties? X believe that the agents which disbursed checks fro® ray account would show that they expeditiously sent funds but things were botched up at the prison for some ungodly reason® X have now exhausted all administrative rowdies under the provisions set forth in the Friaon Litigation Reform Act [PLHA}« I filed an inmate grievance on 3 January 2013* It is grievance number 141174 and it states: On 31 October 2012, I had deducted from ray account $260 which the warden approved for the purpose of having song lyrics copyrighted* On 2 November, 2012 I gave tah counselor the package with adequate postage affixed so X could have it mailed to if«$* Office of Copyright with form 3800 and 3811 returned• The package was not mailed* I wrote Wardne and saw him in impromptu face-to-face ffifcg, But package was not mailed after 2 months* tty rights under Const# Arad* one and four abridged & right to copyright* In the section designated ”Resolution RequestedH I wrote the following: That my rights to produce a work product be given technical support since institutln has flagrantly violated my rights* Now Warden Perry responded» In a statement dated 23 October 2013: A review of your complaint has found this package was held in the mailroom at the request of the United States Copyright Office. The facility was directed to hold the package until the copyright office received the check from GDC Inmate Trust. Case Manager D.H. was notified on 1/15/13 that the payment had been received by the copyright office. The package was mailed on 1/16/13 with the postage provided by the inmate to the address provided by Case Manager D.H. Mow, fcfo# Central Office Appeal Response to grievance 141174 was m follows: 4 A member of my staff has reviewed your grievance. You allege that on 11/21/12 you deducted $260.00 from your account so that your package could be mailed to the U.S. Copyright Office, but the counselor held it for two months. According to a statement from Counselor D.H.— at the request of the U.S. Copyright Office your package was to be held until payment was received and the process would take about four to six weeks after payment was received. Based on this information, your grievance is denied. It is signed by the coeiaissioner dn&ignesd on 3-4-13* Thus I have exhausted all administrative refaediaa* Hence, the records show that on 31 October 2012 a withdrawal was made from my account payable to thm Library of Congress, United States Office of Copyright for copyrighting purposes, A im of $260*00 was paid on a check numbered 98X70# I had affixed twenty-nine [29] stamps to tlm package and gay# if to Mrs* D.H, tah counselor believing that if would be sailed to the Office of Copyright with a check for the copyright fee* The 29 stamps .include tha coat for the P#8* Form 3800 and 3811 which are the certified mail rociapt and domestic mail raciejpt, respectively. * # # # * let, I had other works which needed to be copyrighted, I wrote a drama titled the "Levi Series,” I named each segment Levi X, Levi IX and Levi III# Therefore, after the fiasco with the 83 song lyrics I filled out another money request form and sent in all the volumes to be processed under th# ^Levl Series*" Records will show that the Department of Corrections Central Account— Offender Trust withdrew $85*00 In a check numbered 111883* In good faith I had the "Levi Series" sent to Washington, f)*C# The check front the .Department of Corrections was endorsed but. was never applied to my work# The Copyright Office kept sending m letters about remitting ~ 5 ~ money I had already sent. The check went from the Department of Corrections and it was endorsed by someone after it arrived at the U.S. Office of Copyright, but it was never applied to my work. Both the private prison mailroom and the United States Copyright Office have mishandled my transaction and money transfers. They have made an already tedious process all the more horrendous and protracted. In the final analysis my delay is ultimately an abridgement of free speech and an. attack on my right to legally profit, from an exercise of that free speech* Free speech is not only entails the right to craft an idea, but it also incorporates the right to' have that idea heard. On March 18, 2014 the Library of Congress, United States Office of Copyright reimbursed my account for the check their employee had endorsed and never applied to my account. The mallroom by this time was staffed by different persons than had worked there during the song lyrics debacle. XI took the United States Copyright Office four [4] months to resolve this issue and reissue a check. By Friday, March 21, 2014 I saw Mrs. M. at the mailroom and she told me that I should have another check drafted to the UMited States Office of Copyright since they had. replaced the money which losts That evening I went to see my counselor, Mr. H.t and he tells me. to report back and see him that Monday morning. So, on Monday morning March 24, 2014 I see H and give him a "Money Withdrawal Slip" made payable to the Library of Congress, United States Library of Congress. H. assured me that this transaction had gone through and I proceeded believing that it was debited from my account, and credited to the Library of Congress, United States Gopyriht Office* But process that should take a week with regards to this process of writing check 114796 had taken in excess of 195 days! This is preposterous! This is unconscionable! This is illegal! Therefore, I filed a grievance and under the dictates of the PLRA sought to again exhaust all administrative remedies. Needless to say, the counselor never processed the withdrawal slip. Look what occurred vis-a-vis the grievance process on 14 July 2014s On 24 March I filed a money withdrawal slip with Mr, H, The money was to be sent to the UTS, Office of Copyright to register my book Conundrum, I had no reason to believe that Mr, H» would not process it. This past week I received a statement of my account, and the withdrawal was never made, (This was to remedy the bungling of check #114796 anyway). I left Mr. M. believing that the action would be properly taken so my intellectual property would be properly registered, and it was not# This is an abridgement of my rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Resolution Requested was as follows: I want an investigation and be advised on what has happened, and Mr, H* should be removed from his sensitive position. Now a Grievance Appeal Response from the Commissioner was returned for Grievance Number X77078, It says: A member of my staff has reviewed your grievance. You allege that Mr, H, failed to process your withdrawal slip. According to a statement irom Mr, H», at no time did he receive a withdrawal form from you, however, a form was faxed by an unidentified staff. Due to no staff signatures on your previous form you were informed to resubmit the form to be properly processed. Based on this information, your grievance is denied. # * ^ These inane comments on my grievances on both the seventy-five day delay and the failure of the prison to transmit a money transfer are accurate* Yet before I discuss that, 1 need to discuss the performance of the United States Office of Copyright. The Copyright Office accepted a check and never applied the amount to my work product. Had I been a civilian on the streets I would have got on Amierak and want to the capital to present if; myself, in person. But as a prisoner I had to rely on the prison to send the mail and the United States - 7 ~ Library of Congress to process it, and in both instances they failed miserably. I sought assistance from the Georgia Lawyers for the Arts. Mr. David C. Mayers, Esquire and his colleagues believed that there was a prime facie case of an abridgement of a constitutional right. He then referred me to the Southern Center for Human Rights. The fee for my book Conundrum and The Levi Series were sent to the United States Office of Copyright. In fact, in a letter dated June 10, 2014 from the Library of Congress, United States Copyright Office should be noted. They received my dramatic work "The Levi Series" on January 23, 2014 and teh corresponding case number is SR#1-1346010605. It should’ve been processed, right? It wasn’t. Now in a letter dated November 26, 2014 [Corresponding I.D.s 1-VYRA14 Re: The Levi Series, the United States Copyright Office sent three cushioned packages of "The Levi Series" back to me saying: . "The filing fee received with this claim is being retained to cover administrative costs" These folks screwed up and were charging me for it. What hubris! ■i# # -M* ■# -Sfr Now as an indigent state prison convict I have four typed manuscripts which 1 have a desire to see copyrighted. And this is important because in prison where I am surrounded by thieves, my ideas can be stolen in an open dorm. A person can tell you that your stuff stink, but in reality see some worth in your offerings. Yet, I have copyrighted my doctoral dissertation and 85 song lyrics. There is so much more to be processed. And if X can process the ideas I hay© already committed to paper, I believe that I would have 750 items copy~ 8 ~ righted* Ihsfc is e conservative Qstiinate* I believe that X could be the one American prisoner who would have copyrighted more than any other prisoner in tah history of the United States* But X need help in doing so* Let me return to this theme later* # lifr ■if # The authorities that be gave inane responses* In the final incident the processing of the 85 song lyrics; Who gave Coffee Correctional Facility permission to act as my agent, as a liaison between me and the Copyright Office? Who contacted the United States Copyright Office from CCF? What was said? Why did the United States Copyright Office interact with a group of people who were not agents nor representatives of the artist/composer? What the hell is going on? And if they acted as agents supposedly to benefit me, why wagn*t I informed? When I received neither the domestic return receipt nor the certified mail receipt I knew something fishy was going on. I went to the mail room and saw package laying on top of a cabinet. This stuff should have already been mailed to D.C* since adequate postage was already affixed to it. The only function incumbent upon the mail room staff at Coffee Correctional Facility [CCF] was to insure that my package was sent out to D.C# for processing, .In the second instance requested monies were not processed and the institution admits this. The withdrawal of money was faxed but had no staff signatures. Invariably, I made the request, staff was just too inept to follow through. Let*8 put it another way to understand how grave this situation is; Had X requested a disbursal of my own funds to pay for a habeas corpus or an appeal I would have been denied by some judge simply because ~ 9 - the institution was inept, callous and/or careless in dealing with monies which belonged to inmates. In prison Ifve written about things most people are not privy to see, and things most people who witness them do not have the ability nor the patience to commit to paper. But I need help in dealing with the system. I need advice because I am a lowly prisoner and not; a lawyer, Please feel free to write me at the following: Edward Palmare 977272 Coffee Correctional Facility P.0. Box 650 Nicholls, Georgia 31554 Nonetheless, I have tried to obtain legal assistance to help me with the dissemination and protection of my intellectual property. At first I sought the help of the Georgia Lawyers for the Arts. And I was told that while they believed my claims are meritorious they lacked the resources to assist me. They referred me to the Southern Center for Human Rights. They too were unable to assist me. But that doesn’t thwart my resolve to obtain justice 1 Now I was grievously harmed through this unfortunate process. As a prisoner there is no law forbidding me from publishing. The actions taken by Coffee Correctional Facility were designed solely to frustrate my efforts to exercise my rights under the first Amendment. From time inmemoriam prisoners have been permitted to disseminate their intellectual properties. From Socrates to Solzhenitsyn and even from the great Winston Churchill and Mohandas Ghana1 ideaas have been written from, the very bowels of prison. Because of the mail room’s arbitrary, illegal and capricious conduct the United States Copyright Office processed materials later than they should have been processed. I could have possibly, in the best of all worlds, had 10 - these works placed on the market* I could have entered my lyrics in a chapbook for a contest# I ccAd have disseminated ray work to a putative agent# OR, I could have placed them on the internet, through a third party, so that I kcouold pay off my legal fees# Their practices were perpetrated to discourage me from exercising rights as old as Christendom. Had the warden had his way the Apostle Paul would not have disseminated the Epistles throughout. the known world, 1 have so much to write and share. But I need your help. As a prisoner I have no access to internet. Thus, I have to transmit information the old fashioned way# You have by now read my nTotal Exoneration♦” I have other projects in the offing which may be of interest to you, ct Edward Palraore September, 2015