THE CONSPIRACY OF COMPROMISE - UNBELIEVABLE COST OF COMMUNICATION WITH LOVED ONES BEHIND THE WALLS - Government - http://maxpages.com/darkevilworld/The_Conspiracy_of

MCI had had experience with "inmate" telephone systems for years in several other prison systems, and is presently operating the phone system in several states. It is a result of the fact that in each state in turn the essentially SAME type of system and scheme was implemented that ought to convince any jury that in places like Arkansas it was all a matter of premeditated design. The first order of business for MCI is to "trick" state regulatory commissions into setting inflated but marginally reasonable rates - and then to hide from them the fact that the rates would be superimposed upon a 10, or 15 minute call termination policy created under a pretext of assuring equal access to all prisoners in the system (assuming that these Commissions really do NOT know HOW the rates will then be applied). MCI and the ADC both are well aware that no time-limited call termination is needed, and especially here in Arkansas with so relatively few prisoners and so relatively many phones for the inmates to use. The general statistics discussed earlier should settle that b.s. in anyone's mind.

Next, MCI had decades of experience with the electronics and technological aspects of their own phone system - and when and what kind of glitches would occur under what circumstances, etc. After all, had MCI allowed the general public's calls to be prematurely terminated because of some power surge, satellite signal, high tides, or stormy weather, ad infinitum, MCI would have been out of business decades ago.Consumers would not have tolerated that for long. So, MCI knew that ADC inmates' calls would routinely be disrupted and re-dials would have to be made. They knew it as a result of experience, and even as a result of R & D in other prison systems. Consequently, I feel that the "flaws" in technology that would prematurely terminate thousands of inmates' calls (10%) was also deliberately implemented simply to rack up another few hundred thousand dollars of profit before people got angry enough to make it wise for MCI to "fix" all the bugs. That money needs to be paid back. Indeed, it is interesting that in virtually all prison systems the technological bugs that plagued the system all magically disappear(ed) as soon as - but not until - enough people complained about it to consumer protection groups, or in the courts. Sure, MCI knew that eventually the consumers WOULD raise a big and loud fuss over it, but until that time actually came MCI would rack up millions in re-dial charges (for which customers were also not given credit on their bills as a general rule). When that enough-is-enough point was reached also here in Arkansas, guess what? The techno-glitches all but disappeared - overnight, just like they all but disappeared in other prison systems at the same point. There has not been a significant problem with this since about late 1996. Ah, but several millions dollars were made by MCI and the ADC before that.

Inevitably, lawsuits have now been filed in several states where MCI has been racketeering within the prison system. At least two state legislatures have investigated the extortion. However, I was surprised over how few persons who did file suit so far seemed to focus a challenge on the "call limit" policies either by calculating the call minutes available within that system, or by demonstrating that the alleged reason for limiting calls is wholly contrived. An organization called Citizens United for Rehabilitating Errants (CURE) has been very active with trying to stop the phone abuses across the nation as a whole. However, I think that this group would compromise in a way that would still allow tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to have been extorted and never paid back.

In any event, in those states where lawsuits or investigations are pending, MCI seems to pursue a "last ditch" strategy of compromise which I feel is itself an element of conspiracy. First, the Commission is tricked into setting high rates that will then be abused; then call limitations are implemented under pretense of allowing equal access or of assuring prison security; then call interrupting "glitches" are widespread until enough people get upset; then a few of the more assertive consumers have improper billing adjusted to pacify them; and then come the lawsuits challenging the lawfulness of the entire racketeering enterprise. Examine each prison system where MCI set up shop and a virtually identical set of milestones exist; the blueprint.

Once the lawsuits actually get filed, MCI's and the prison system's defenses to claims are generally predictable. The first order of business is to win on technical points at all costs. That means that the plaintiffs had better had a crack attorney from the outset. The prison system and MCI generally point the finger at the Public Service Commission, and use prison "security" as the catch-all justification. MCI generally blames the prison system for implementing unfair call termination policies - from which MCI "just happens" to rack up millions in profits. Nobody is to blame.

Next, when the cases survive all those kinds of maneuvers, MCI seeks to make a "settlement" with the individual plaintiffs. If it works, then a handful of plaintiffs will have smiles on their faces and feel vindicated, while MCI and the prison system chuckle over how easy it was to do away with the legal threat; for a pittance.

But, in those cases where scrupulous and principled plaintiffs reject the initial offers and the cases appear destined to go to a jury, MCI then will make on-record admissions IN COURT to the effect that after some study and reflection, MCI feels that the phone system was indeed somewhat unfair and worked a hardship on inmates and their families, particularly the call limit policies. However, because of its benevolence MCI is willing to "work out some compromise" in order to demonstrate its good faith.

In each state or court in turn, MCI also proposed the compromise that the 10 minute (or 15 or 20 minute - whatever the case may be in a given prison system) call limit be extended, since IT is the acknowledged primary "culprit" of unfairness and hardship. Of course, along with those suggestions MCI generally produces detailed statistics of how much money it CURRENTLY makes under the existing call limit policies and practices - in order to then "show" MCI's "losses" or "sacrifices" in compromise with the plaintiffs. This tactic usually engages the legal principle of "good faith" - AND all but kills any hope for punitive damages.

Look at it like this: If MCI currently averages $23.45 PER HOUR under the 10-minute call practice (5 hook-ups at $2.05 + .22 cents times 60 minutes) and benevolently offers to extend the call limit to 20 minutes - then that would be a LOSS of $4.10 PER HOUR to MCI (about 40%), since there would then only be 3 hook-up fees at $2.05, instead of 5 hook-up fees. Project that across one full year for the entire prison system, and we are talking several MILLION DOLLARS SAVED BY THE CONSUMER, and "lost" to MCI (at current profit rates). That SOUNDS like a REASONABLE OFFER and compromise, does it not? It SOUNDS like a "good faith" effort to correct an injustice, does it not? Well, normally that would be the conclusion of any fair-minded and reasonable person, AND THE COURT. However, this "Nice guys" approach overlooks two basic facts:

First, this kind of b.s. is not sincere simply because MCI would have known after its experience with the FIRST prison system that call limits worked the real financial hardships (AND just happened to rack up half the profits). So, after MCI admitted in THAT lawsuit that it realized this fact, and offered to "sacrifice" millions of dollars a year in "good faith" to be fair - then WHY DID MCI IMPLEMENT THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM in each prison system in turn, only to there make the same admission, and only to there make the same "good faith" offer of a compromise?

There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you." In other words, nothing MCI does, has done, or will do in settling a lawsuit over inmate phones is in good faith. Rather, it is a well-designed conspiratorial set of milestones dealt with in the same way in each prison system in turn. In the meantime, the AGGREGATE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars of illicit profits made go unnoticed. Furthermore, MCI absorbs no "losses" with suggesting extensions of the call limitation plans in prisons, simply because it was all part of the plan to EVENTUALLY compromise precisely in this way - in order to avoid PUNITIVE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES. Someone MUST assert this conspiratorial and "bad faith" plan in a lawsuit, and push it to a jury trial for punitive damages. Only then can there be any hope for forcing MCI and the prison systems to pay back all that extorted money. MCI in effect uses the classic "bully" psychology; abuse others as long as possible, and when finally stood up to, plead innocent and misunderstood and make a few compromises to pacify people and the law, then screw someone else the same way next time. It should not be allowed to continue.

The truth is, MCI knows that call limit practices are NOT NEEDED in virtually all the prison systems which it currently serves. Simply calculating the call minutes available to prisoners vs. the call minutes actually used exposes that deceit well enough. Moreover, under some circumstances, if MCI actually was paid for ALL call minutes available on its system within a prison system, the profit to MCI on an annual basis would EXCEED THE GROSS AGGREGATE INCOME OF ALL CONSUMERS PAYING FOR THE CALLS. In other words, there is not likely a prison system in the U.S.A. that could financially "fill" MCI's phone profit potential even if all the phones stayed on 24 hours a day and no call limits were imposed at all. So, MCI, by way if its coconspirator prison system, contrives a need for a call limit SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RACKING UP HOOK-UP charges. The prison systems go along with it simply because that is HOW they are allowed to share in the juicy pie.

These things said, there are several other significant constitutional issues involved with the inmate phone system that SHOULD be litigated in a lawsuit filed by free world plaintiffs. They include the fact that because MCI is a private corporation, it can undermine the guarantees and protections offered to free citizens under the 1st and 4th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The right to privacy and related concepts is seriously infringed only because the prison system is ALLOWED to extend its actual borders across the entire world by way of the phone system, like an amoebae reaching tentacles out to everywhere that a phone rings. But, there is a vast difference between compelling free citizens to surrender certain rights in a limited way when they physically enter upon prison property, and by electronically extending prison property into private homes by way of phone lines. Also, since the 4th Amendment offers protection only against unlawful GOVERNMENTAL "intrusion" - then MCI can totally undermine those protections simply because it is not a governmental entity. By making its technology available to the ADC by proxy, the ADC also can violate these laws by proxy.

There are also state laws that forbid the ADC, or prison systems most anywhere, from engaging in certain kinds of profit making in the private sector. In my opinion, the ADC's cut of the MCI money is illegal for several reasons - including the fact that it is total WINDFALL profit (i.e. the ADC does nothing to earn the money; and it is profit made SOLELY IN RETURN FOR A CALL LIMIT policy BY WHICH MCI can be allowed to make the windfall profits it then shares with the prison system (i.e., the state itself). It is classic racketeering.(Remember, in the hypothetical MCI increased its profits by 40% because of call limits, while the ADC made 1/3 as much as MCI would have made without the 10 minute call limit!).

It is my hope that when the suit against Arkansas' conspiracy is filed, no plaintiffs will "compromise" by giving in to the very "offers" that MCI typically makes solely to evade punitive damages. MCI and the ADC need to be put to the wall once and for all - and to allow a jury to decide whether a several billion dollar award might prevent similar racketeering and extortion in the future. It is reasonable for MCI to charge a hook-up fee ONCE, and then to bill for call minutes at some reasonable rate, but everything else is outright rape and criminal.

God's grace to you.

**Rolf Kaestel, Cummins prison, October 1999**

Telephone Update

Today, November 2, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette contained an article titled "Charges too high for inmate calls, CURE group says". In that article, written by Michael Rowett, it is reported that the ADC actually makes 46% of the net profit from the phone system, or some $3 million annually! That's about $7,000,000 per year gross, or some $580,000 per month, or near $20,000 per day That's a lot of bucks for only 12,000 inmates to generate by way of our families and friends due mainly to a contrived call limit policy.

Ms. Effie Bowers, the local CURE director stated that the exorbitant call rates should not be allowed any longer because they are tantamount to punishing inmates' loved ones, and that it is not a crime to care about a prisoner. CURE is hopeful that legislation will soon ensue forbidding MCI and the prison systems from racketeering like this. State Representative Michael Booker, D-Little Rock, also said that if the exorbitant costs are not voluntarily reduced soon, he will consider legislation to force it. Ms. Bowers and CURE also proposed that inmates around the nation be issued phone debit cards in order to curtail the costs.

In typical spoon feeding fashion and with subtle misleading innuendo, Prison Spokeswoman Dina Tyler explained that the money made from the phones went to good causes - like giving inmates $50 when they are released, to covering some medical bills, and to providing for recreation related supplies. She and the ADC are against inmate debit cards because issuing cards to 12,000 inmates would constitute a "bookkeeping nightmare." She also explained the call rates at $1 for a local call to $3 for long distance, and 22 cents a minute for the first minute, and 17 cents a minute after that. (I guess she has never done the math for an actual MCI call and bill). Also, she said that "if no other inmate is waiting to use the telephone, the inmate may make a second call to the same number paying the surcharge again."

Ms. Tyler's comments are misleading because the ADC was supposed to be paying for release money, medical bills, and recreation from the millions of dollars already racked up annually from the prison commissary profits. Where are those millions going if the phone money now pays for that? She also implied that inmates "might" make a second call only if another inmate is not waiting to make a call, and only because the ADC then benevolently lets the inmate call one more time -- as if there is almost always another persons waiting to call. What a masterful crafting of tongue to hide the fact that inmates make as many calls as they wish and that there has never been a problem with any inmates calling as many times as they like. PROVIDED, of course, that they pay the surcharge every 12 minutes, of course. Creeps. As it has existed since 1994, the only practical difference between keeping the phoney call limit and doing away with a call limit altogether, is the aggregate "time" used up by inmates hanging up the phone, re-dialing their numbers, and waiting for the call to be reconnected. I doubt very seriously that if the phone system would crash and become dysfunctional in terms of inmates' use simply because inmates TALKED on the phone for that time that they spend re-dialing their numbers.

Although the phone debit cards proposed by CURE might generally be a good idea in some circumstances, they are really not necessary. If the call limits are removed and if inmates are not time limited to any of the calls they make, that alone would reduce the cost to consumers by roughly one fifth. That would still mean a gross of $1.4 million a year (instead of $7 million) to MCI, or $116,000 a month, and $3,900 a day. The ADC would still rack up $644,000 a year. THAT seems much more reasonable. Of course, if MCI is forced to retreat to the base rates actually set by and in the spirit of the Commission, MCI likely will tell the ADC to shove it altogether, precisely BECAUSE there would be no reason to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who does nothing more than exist! Again, people really should think about WHY on earth a corporation would pay 46 PERCENT of the gross to the ADC - when the ADC has NOTHING to do with the phone system per se? It doesn't own the equipment, it doesn't install the equipment, and it doesn't provide maintenance for the equipment.

It is my deepest hope that CURE or whomever stands up to MCI and the ADC does NOT allow their scheme to have worked by settling for a compromise beginning at some future date, and one that totally ignoresthe millions of dollars that have already been extorted and racketeered. It is time that a jury decides whether punitive damages should be awarded, plain and simple. Anything short of that and the conspiracy will indeed have worked, because neither MCI nor the ADC expected to keep taking advantage of suckers indefinitely. From 1994 to now, there are some $35 million dollars that need to be paid back to our families and friends, and that's not counting collateral injuries to them. I also feel that punitive damages are essential to teach a lesson and to assure that neither MCI nor some other company does a similar thing ever again. After all, that's the purpose of punitive damages. The utter WINDFALL profiteering is exposed by the 10 minute call limit policy and by recognizing that it was FOR THAT POLICY alone that the ADC got 46% percent of the gross. Of course, that policy also allowed MCI made 40% more profit than had that policy not been implemented. Likewise, the b.s. nature of the call limit tself is exposed by some simple math comparing the number of inmates, to the number ofphones, to the number of call minutes available and used.