I received in the mail a CDC Form 128-B dated 9/20/04 Authored and signed by an officer named D.J. Williams, whom I imagine is the male guard who searched me yesterday (which I chronicled), the document states: "This CDC--1.28 B[sic] is to inform you that as of September 20, 2004, you have been temporarily unassigned from your work assignment TEA-B.301 ABE Teachers Assistant [sic].

 It has been alleged that you may have been involved in misconduct. associated with your work assignment," As I said in yesterday's journal entry, I don't know what is going on, but I believe it 
somehow has something to do with my job and the computers located where I work.

 When I started working for the ABE I teacher, Mr. Poitras, on 4/23/04 I was instructed to make the $85,000.00 Plato education system work (the system consists of 10-12 computers networked into a single server on which the Plato software resides). 

Neither I nor my supervisor received any notice or instruction regarding what I could and could not do as a prisoner to make the system work. Then I found myself overwhelmed by the complexity of 
troubleshooting such an intricate system, I asked Mr. Poitras for assistance from a prisoner named Hart, who claims to have more than 10 years of education and experience as a MicroSoft network 
engineer. 

When Hart arrived to assist, I introduced him to the system and told him to make it workable for the students (with the same absence of notice I received regarding what prisoners may and may not do to make a system function properly). In a few weeks, the system was running perfectly.

 As a result of the time and effort Hart and I put in, we saved the prison several thousands of dollars they would have had to pay a Plato technician to come and service the system, 

So although I do not know exactly what has been "alleged" against me, I am confident that I have done absolutely nothing associated with my work assignment that was expressly prohibited. I am therefore not going to let myself worry about disciplinary action because the federal courts consider disciplinary action without notice a violation of due process:

 "It is clearly established, both by common sense and by precedent, that due process requires fair notice of what conduct is prohibited before a sanction can be imposed." (Newell v. Sauser (9th Cir. 1996) 79 F.3d 115, 1.17; see also, Seehausen v. Van Buren (D.Or. 2002) 43 F.Supp.2d 1165

 The court found that. a disciplinary order violated Seehausen's right to due process of law because "[he was sanctioned for conduct that was not expressly prohibited, and for which he could not have had and did not have notice";).

I, Eric Charles Rodney K'Napp, verify under penalty of perjury that this journal entry is true and was made within just hours of the event(s) chronicled herein.

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP