Pennsylvania's inane Department of Imprisonment is utterly obsessed with all things sexual. The unnatural preoccupation has become much more pronounced since Jeffrey Beard has been the Secretary of Imprisonment. Did you ever notice how fanatical some persons become about matters for which they themselves are guilty? Pennsylvania's Department of Imprisonment has innumerable regulations about sex. They teach prisoners how bad sex is. It's mostly hypocrisy. The rest is nonsense. One of Secretary Beard's most herculean efforts is a very lengthy regulation called, DC-ADM 803. It's an example of the rules that crack pots make. Fanatics shouldn't be allowed to meddle with normal people. Rule DC-ADM 803, InmateMail and Incoming Publications, is mostly about sex. It must be on the staff's mind a lot. Among a very long list of other terrors, the rule bans "materials [which depict] nudity" or even describe it! The ban is extremely broad. It includes personal correspondence with one's spouse, medical and art books and publications, historical and anthropological texts. Doctor Beard has no objection, however, to men showering with 50 other naked men or to having guards strip down the prisoners and look up their butts. In fact, Secretary Beard appears to have little objection to anything queer. A prisoner named Brittain at the state prison at Mahony in East-Central Pennsylvania, thought that, like so many other prison fetishes, the rule was way overly broad and recklessly abridged the Constitution. He brought suit against Jeffrey Beard's fanaticism, Brittain v Beard, 932 A2d 324. Such a presumptuous legal challenge to unconstitutional fanaticism meant that the taxpayers would have to defend Beard's sexual mania. Enter Debby Sue Rand, lawyer and defender of Doctor Beard's obsessions. Attorney Rand is only one of 19 lawyers that the Department of Imprisonment keeps on hand to help hold down the prisoners and to defy the public. None of them seems to be much good. Some of them appear to be downright shysters. They'll go before a court to say or do almost anything. They'll make claims which they certainly don't believe themselves. In other words, they do what only very bad attorneys do, represent meritless cases. Ms Rand went before the Commonwealth Court. She pretended that the no-nakedness rule was just dandy. She asked for summary judgment. In spite of the huge overpaid staff and limitless tax-supported resources, the court refused to support Ms Rand by violating the Constitution, VERY strange! We don't know how much tax money was spent by Ms Rand and her crew in the effort to violate the Constitution. It must have been a bundle. Our publisher, Sanda Feigley, wrote to Ms Rand trying to have her confess how much money she wasted. I see you flopped again. How much taxpayer money did you waste in your failed defense of the Department of Imprisonment's sexual obsessions in Brittain v Beard? (another dud DOC functionary!) With all DOC's very costly resources, was that the best you could do? and about such a vital issue of earth shattering importance, naked folks; wouldn't want to be subjected to one of Picasso's cubist boobs. That would be a public danger of Homeland Security proportions! Please favor me with a prompt response. I want to include the information in our next article about the legal staff, our money and the ridiculous Department of Imprisonment. Oddly, Mrs. Feigley hasn't received a reply to her request for information. IT may be that Ms Rand is occupied with defending some other unconstitutional policy. Rebecca's Bargain Antiques Collectible Vintage Photos Fine Prints - Old Maps Sheet Music - Old Books Elegant Antiques and Collectibles "The higher the ape mounts, the more he shows his breech," Thomas Fuller, 1732 You are welcome to use or re-publish any of our material. Please give www.prisoners.com credit as the source. Return to the Lawyers, Sharks and Saviors Menu Return to the Court Cases Menu Return to the Main Menu Use our site's Google Search Feature Send us Your Comments, Questions or Stories