Former Judge Samuel Kent Files Motion Alleging Abuse in Prison

Former Judge Samuel Kent has been placed in the position of filing complaints as an inmate in Texas. He is serving 33-months for obstruction of justice after he lied about allegations involving groping and sexual assault of two female court employees. He claims to have been abused as a prisoner due to his status as a former federal judge.

His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, filed the motion in U.S. District Court in Houston asking for resentencing. One of the more troubling allegations — besides verbal and physical abuse — is that Kent has been denied access to a federal substance abuse program that would have allowed him to reduce his sentence by as much as a year. I do not see why he would be denied such access to the program.

The filing states “[t]he Federal Bureau of Prisons has subjected Sam Kent to abusive psychological and physical conditions that have jeopardized his ongoing recovery from severe depression and alcoholism, while arbitrarily prohibiting him from participation in rehabilitative programs.”

Source; AOL

104 thoughts on “Former Judge Samuel Kent Files Motion Alleging Abuse in Prison”

  1. Pingback: Big Buddha Sam
  2. Here’s the link

    28 USC § 530D. Report on enforcement of laws—D000-.html

    Also if the complaint involves violations of records matching agreements, then there is mandatory reporting under 5 USC 552a(u). For instance, in my case, USMS asked the Verona police to detain me without a criminal charge thru a record self designated as a NCIC record but the charges against me were not criminal. I was merely accused of doing legal things that former judge Naughty Nottingham and civil defendants didn’t want me to do.

    42 USC § 14616 National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact is the authorization for NCIC systems and it explicitly defines
    (4) Criminal history records
    The term “criminal history records”—
    (A) means information collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising therefrom, including acquittal, sentencing, correctional supervision, or release; and
    (B) does not include identification information such as fingerprint records if such information does not indicate involvement of the individual with the criminal justice system.

    So by the plain language of the statute if there is no criminal charge, USMS can’t asked the local police to detain you. So I complained to DOJ re that the Marshals had me detained without a criminal charge using NCIC and it is a Privacy Act complaint which therefore must be reported.

  3. well I did read something somewhere in title 28 about some sort of report that DOJ was supposed to make in which it lists the crimes by number that haven’t been prosecuted. I’m not sure what the status is. I think I read it in the House of Representatives U.S. code search where they show the historical versions. I have a list of things to do, but maybe I’ll find the exact citation. Or someone else can look. In title 28 there are many pages about what the attorney general is supposed to do. The House of Representatives website has google advanced search engine functions. If you use Cornell Legal Institute they have big type and links to congressional notes. Either source, in not that long you can skim the entire Title 28. Then there are also records of all the Congressional discussions and supporting documents submitted every time they changed wording.

    The amount of corruption varies a lot from place to place and time to time. I am a long time gardener and found that with weeds the best approach is multi-disciplinary i.e. prevent weeds, kill weeds, prevent weed seeds, collect weed seeds, etc. The easiest long term approach is to not let the weeds take over. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. etc. But we are where we are and in order for our future to be better, we need to dig in against corruption.

  4. only crooks will vote against making attorney regulators an elected office, don’t you think?

    sadly, no.

    what you have written is a tad over my head Kay. But I almost always balk when I see that when deliberately broken laws go unenforced or enforced selectively….crooks and those with
    vested interest and power simply rewrite the laws to their own ends, make new promises, create a new office or 2 that will also only work selectively, and coast until its time for strong arming again. It is a science and an art here and I’m not a fan of that manner of either…
    the longer that dynamic exists the more unraveled and de-cultured our society becomes. What should be an exciting time becomes a tribulation to survive. No thanks.

Comments are closed.