One would think a jail would know the identity of its inmates with absolute certainty after a reasonable amount of time. Particularly after having fingerprinted and taken photographs ("Mug Shots") of the person and then submitted these to stand and federal agencies that specialize in verifying identities. Apparently, this is not so, as the Shasta County Jail ("JAIL") staff have a history of not being able to identify its inmates with certainty, or know who is incarcerated therein.

One JAIL identification gaffe occurred on Tuesday, January 6, 2003, when through misidentification the JAIL erroneously released the wrong inmate, Chad Garrett Smith, 32, instead of Doug Smith. JAIL staff did not even notice that none of Doug Smith's personal clothing fit Chad Smith. The JAIL has since, supposedly, modified its procedures in order to prevent future identification problems. These include new plastic photo identification ("ID") writs bands that all inmates are required to wear.

Apparently, however, the JAIL's identification problems have not all been solved, as the JAIL still cannot identify its inmates, or even keep track of whom they have incarcerated. It is a common occurrence for the JAIL to return mail to the sender, to turn away family and friends attempting to visit or place money in an inmate's trust account, only to be told the person is "not in custody" and sent on their way, even though the family knows the person is within the JAIL. However, a recent claim by the JAIL to be unable to identify an inmate who had been in custody for over one year wins the award for being absurd, farcical and unthinkable, and possibly based on anti-Semitism.

Inmate Moshe Isaac Stein, an Australian National who has served the United States Military and fought for America in Viet Nam, who officials from the Australian Consulate identified after making a trip to the JAIL in Redding, and who various state and federal agencies identified through fingerprints, is still unidentifiable after one year of incarceration, according to JAIL staff and administration.

It seems that Mr. Stein needed the services of a Notary Public to execute a Power of Attorney, a right guaranteed to all prisoners in California by Penal Code §2601(f). Pursuant to JAIL procedures, it was arranged for a Notary to come to the JAIL, at Mr. Stein's expense, to perform the notary service on this legal document. However, when the Notary required identification of Mr. Stein, incredulously the JAIL claimed to be unable to do so. The Notary was sent away bewildered, shocked and unable to perform this simple service because the JAIL, amazingly, cannot identify its inmates.

Mr. Stein then submitted a written Grievance (See Footnote 1 for text.) To the JAIL's Facility Administrator, Captain Don VanBuskirk, which summarized the problem and asked the specific question: "What does the jail intend to do to solve this dilemma and arrange to provide Notary services?" On 12/5/03, Captain VanBuskirk gave the following terse response: "Mr. Stein. If your question is, are we reasonably sure you are Moshe Stein, yes we are."

If this is true, then why did the JAIL deny being able to identify hm to a Notary Public? Especially since all jails are required by law to make notary services available to inmates. This grievance response is typical of the JAIL's issue avoidance techniques, and unwillingness to resolve obvious problems through their Administrative Appeals Process. The man has a need, and a legal entitlement, to create a power of appointment. This requires notary services, and due to being incarcerated, an inmate has no other means of exercising his legal rights but through the jail's cooperation. Inmates are not allowed to possess personal identification, therefore any identification requirements must be the responsibility of the jail. The Administrative response states we are "reasonable sure" you are Moshe Stein, but what does "reasonable sure" actually mean if this is not sufficient for the JAIL to identify him to a Notary Public? Yet, it is good enough to deprive him of his liberty--one of the Constitution's greatest guarantees.

The Administrative response actually avoids dealing with a clear and bona fide problem, and was contumelious in not responding to a clear question. This type of unwillingness to solve a legitimate problem is typical of situations that result in avoidable inmate lawsuits. Lawsuits that are often undefendable and waste a great deal of taxpayer money because they involve the entities dereliction of ministerial duties which were required by law.

Such legal entitlements also fall under the Due Process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, (1989) 489 U.S. 189, 200, "When a person is institutionalized--and wholly dependent on the State, a duty to provide certain services and care dues exist. . .In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individuals' freedom to act in his own behalf--through incarceration, or other similar restraints of personal liberty--which is the deprivation of liberty triggering the protections of the due process clause."

In other words, when Shasta County, through the affirmative action of incarcerating Mr. Stein in its jail, prevented him from acting in his own behalf to create a power of appointment, the County, through the JAIL, assumes a duty to provide the service. In this case, Mr. Stein had paid for the Notary Public to come to the JAIL, but the JAIL staff failed and/or refused to verify his identity. Something only they could do after depriving Mr. Stein of all personal identification.

Having a bona fide need to create this power of attorney (appointment), Mr. Stein pressed on and submitted an Appeal (See Footnote 2 for text.) To his previous Grievance response, complaining of the contumelious avoidance of the problem at issue in the response, chastising the lack of professionalism, and reminding the Captain of this right guaranteed by Penal Code §2601 (f), "to create a power of appointment," and finally asking again to resolve the problem without further ado and expense to the taxpayers.

Unbelievably, Capt. VanBuskirk's, 12/8/03, response to the Appeal continues to feign ignorance or inability to understand the problem by stating: "Mr. Stein--Please speak english plain and simple. Why do you need a notary? You have an attorney to advise you and prepare legal documents, etc."

The JAIL officials know full well inmates are given court appointed attorneys only for their criminal cases--not for personal matters such as power of attorney. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether this seemingly minor problem remains unresolvable due to obduracy, ineptness, laziness, or even racial prejudice. Mr. Stein is ethnically Jewish, being the son of two Auschwitz (WW-II Nazi Death Camp) survivors, and has experienced a good deal of anti-Semitism, such as: racial slurs from both JAIL staff and inmates; the direct refusal of JAIL staff to allow him to contact his embassy, as required by International Treaty; confiscation of his Tanakh (Jewish Bible) by JAIL staff; and general interference with his basic due process rights. This should be no surprise in a county known world wide for such prejudice following the synagogue bombings by Shasta County's own infamous Williams brothers, and the subsequent racial attack in the JAIL against guard Timothy Renault, also ethnically Jewish.

Not withstanding the somewhat sarcastic exchanges from both sides, there could never be any doubt as to the problem at issue. Continuing colloquy appears futile, which will force this issue into court for resolution at taxpayer expense due to obstinate, obdurate, perverse, public officials who know better.

So far, everyone hearing of this situation finds it farcical and distressing. The term "Keystone Kops" has come up in relation to this incident. Seriously, however, there is something very wrong when a jail cannot be absolutely sure of the identity of an inmate, particularly considering the resources available in light of increased homeland security following "9-11," and over ne year to determine his identity. Or, if the problem is the result of other possibilities presented, then in this deficit budget era the taxpayers should be looking closely at the lack of efficiency within the hierarchy of the Sheriff's Department and JAIL.

Text of Administrative Grievance dated 12/4/03, directed to Facility Administrator, Captain Don VanBuskirk: "Pursuant to jail procedures, it was arranged for a Notary Public to come to the jail to notarize a legal document. On 12/4/03, [when] the Notary arrived, she required proof of my identity. Officer Jackson refused to identify me and refused to summon a supervisor. Later, Officer "Michelle," via another verbal request, informed me the Supervisor stated the jail was unable to identify me, thus denying my access to Notary services and the legal system. The jail has a duty in such situations to provide identification of those incarcerated therein. This because the jail is keeper of all such information, and inmates are allowed to possess only jail I.D. wrist bands, and therefore, have no other means but jail identification of identity. It is ludicrous for the jail, through its staff, to claim to be unable to identify my person after having officially done so through photographs and fingerprints, and then having used this verification to incarcerate this corpus vitalis on charges against one Moshe Isaac Stein for over one year. Now, the jail staff is essentially claiming the jail cannot verify they are incarcerating the correct person. The implications are staggering. What does the jail intend to do to solve this dilemma and arrange to provide Notary services? Or, I am in fact not Moshe Stein to release me?"
 

Answer dated 12/5/03, signed by Capt. Van Buskirk, #196: "Mr. Stein. If your question is, are we reasonably sure you are Moshe Stein, yes we are."

Text of Appeal dated 12/7/03, directed to Facility Administrator, Capt. Don VanBuskirk: "On 12/4/03, I filed a Grievance alerting you to a problem of the jail not being able to identify me to a Notary Public. You tersely answered, 'Mr. Stein, if your question is, are we reasonably sure you are Moshe Stein, yes we are.' Following the summary of events leading to the problem, a specific question was asked: 'What does the jail intend to do to solve this dilemma and arrange to provide Notary services?' This question was clearly punctuated with a question mark, and thus, there should have been no doubt as to what the grievance sought to accomplish! Your response was contumelious in its avoidance of the problem at issue, and beneath the dignity expected in an answer from a professional administrator concerning a bona fide problem. Since Penal Code §2601 (f) conveys the right 'To create a power of appointment,' must I subject the taxpayers of Shasta County and the Sheriff himself to the costs of a Identification Hearing in court, or can the jail solve this problem of identifying me to a Notary Public without further ado?"
 

Answer dated 12/8/03, signed by Capt. VanBuskirk, #196: "Mr. Stein--Please speak english plain and simple. Why do you need a notary? You have an attorney to advise you and prepare legal documents, etc."