EFTA00028003.pdf

IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES' COURT BETWEEN:
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-v JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE
DECLARATION OF MAUREEN P. BAIRD
I, MAUREEN P. BAIRD, hereby declare under penalty of perjury the following:
1. From March 1989 through September 2016, I was employed by the Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and served in many capacities. My last three
positions held were; Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, (FCI) Danbury,
Connecticut (2009-2014), Senior Executive Service (SES) Warden, Metropolitan
Correctional Center (MCC), New York (2014-2016), and SES Warden, United States
Penitentiary, (USP), Marion, Illinois (2016-Retired).
2. In my capacity as Warden, at these institutions, I was responsible for the overall
operation and entire components of each prison. I am fully knowledgeable of the
operations policies of the Bureau of Prisons, (BOP) and very specifically familiar with
the operations of the Communication Management Unit at USP Marion.
3. Since my retirement from the Bureau of Prisons, I have maintained contact with many
former colleagues. I have kept abreast of new policies and laws that directly impact the
Bureau of Prisons. Since early 2017, I have worked as an independent prison consultant
and have provided expert witness testimony.
1
EFTA00028003
4. A copy of my resume which includes my relevant work experience has been provided to
Counsel in this case.
5. I was contacted by Mr. Assange's solicitors and asked to provide a declaration focused
on topics within my expertise in response to the Declaration submitted by Dr. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], Administrator of the Psychology Services Branch of the Bureau of Prisons,
dated August 24th 2020 and the Fourth Supplemental Declaration of [REDACTED]
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, dated September 3nd 2020. I was
asked to provide my expert opinion as someone who worked many years in the same
federal prison system as Dr [REDACTED]. I will provide my opinion based on my
experience regarding conditions of confinement in the Bureau of Prisons for inmates
assigned Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), offenders assigned to the
Communications Management Unit (CMU), and inmates housed in
solitary/isolation/restrictive housing units.
6. In preparation for this declaration, in addition to the Declaration of D [REDACTED]
and [REDACTED], I also reviewed previously submitted Declarations prepared by
[REDACTED], dated January 17th 2020 and February 19th 2020 as well as two
Affidavits submitted by [REDACTED], [REDACTED] Justice Advocacy Group, LLC,
Alexandria, Virginia, the Affidavit of [REDACTED], Attorney, New York, New York
and two Statements of [REDACTED], Attorney, Washington, DC dated and 18th October
2019 and 18th July 2020
7. I am advised, Mr. Assange is pending extradition to the United States for his alleged
criminal activity charging: Conspiracy to Receive National Defense Information,
Obtaining National Defense Information, Disclosure of National Defense Information,
2
EFTA00028004
and Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion. If a conviction of these charges results
in the United States, he faces a potential lengthy sentence without the possibility of
parole.
Declaration of [REDACTED] (September 3rd, 2020)
Special Administrative Measures
8. In reviewing [REDACTED] documents, he makes several references to the possibility
of Mr. Assange being placed under Special Administrative Measures, (SAMs),
authorized by the Attorney General and implemented by the wardens of the facility where
the offender is housed. As the former Warden of MCC New York, which housed SAMs
inmates pending trial in the Southern District of New York, I am very familiar with the
restrictions which accompany a SAMs Order. I agree, in part, with the information
provided by [REDACTED], specifically, his description of SAMs and the usual
restrictions placed on an offender under SAMs. The restriction of social visits, telephone
calls, correspondence, access to other inmates, and placement in a restrictive form of
housing is commonplace for SAMs inmates.
9. In the Affidavits prepared by [REDACTED] he provides in great detail, the effects and
outcome of SAMs imposed on inmates. I agree with the references and the accurate
descriptions provided by [REDACTED] in his affidavits regarding the effects of SAMs on
inmates and the conditions of confinement associated with these measures.
10. In his Fourth Supplemental Declaration dated September 3rd 2020, [REDACTED]
challenges some of the assertions regarding SAMs provided by [REDACTED] For anyone
to suggest that an inmate assigned under SAMs, would be able to participate in group
3
EFTA00028005
counseling is baffling to me. The main premise of assigning SAMs, is to restrict a
person's communication and the only way to accomplish this is through isolation. For
example [REDACTED] lists a variety of programs available to inmates assigned to the
ADX. I don't doubt all of these programs exist, but I believe they are available only to a
select group of inmates housed at that facility. Even if the Warden, Unit Team,
Lieutenant or Captain wanted to allow SAMs inmates to participate in certain group
programs, they do not have the legal authority to sanction such an action. All of these
robust programs which [REDACTED] says are available, they would be meaningless and
non-existent to [REDACTED] if he were assigned under SAMs. There may be certain
courses/programs available to inmates assigned SAMs, but I believe all of those would be
some type of self-study, which could be completed by an inmate, housed alone in his
prison cell.
11. Inmates assigned SAMs, whom I had responsibility for, were always housed alone, in the
most restrictive housing unit, more isolated than what most individuals would deem
solitary confinement to be. During my 18-months at MCC New York, I conducted, at a
minimum, weekly tours of the 10-South housing unit, where SAMs inmates were
confined. Inmates were in solitary confinement, technically, for 24-hours per day. There
was absolutely no communication, by any means, with other inmates. The only form of
human interaction they encountered was when correctional officers opened the viewing
slot during their inspection rounds of the unit, when institution staff walked through the
unit during their required weekly rounds, or when meals were delivered through the
secure meal slot in the door. One-hour recreation was offered to inmates in this unit each
day; however, in my experience, often times an inmate would decline this opportunity
4
EFTA00028006
because it was much of the same as their current situation. The recreation area, in the
unit, consisted of a small barren indoor cell, absent any exercise equipment. During my
tenure at MCC New York, I had a stationary exercise bicycle placed in the designated
recreation cell. I am uncertain if that bicycle is still in place.
12. As with most restrictive housing units within the federal prisons, there is a limited list of
commissary items for inmates to purchase on their designated shopping day. The
products available for purchase are much more condensed than the commissary items
available to inmates in a general population housing unit. Telephone calls to immediate
family members were allowed once per month; however, as with any SAMs inmate, the
call must be scheduled in advance and coordinated through BOP staff and agents from
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). All telephone calls must be live monitored by
an FBI agent. Similar telephone calls, the inmate's limited social visits with immediate
family members also required live audio monitoring by the FBI. The vast majority of
inmates under SAMs at MCC New York, were not United States citizens, nor did their
families reside in this Country. This made it very difficult for their families to visit and
due to the time differences, difficult to arrange for telephone calls.
13. There are two very differing views presented by [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (July 16,
2020, Affidavit, Section 50-51), with regard to an inmate's due process rights to
challenge SAMs. I would agree with [REDACTED] stance, that application of SAMs, in a
legal sense, affords the opportunity for inmates to challenge its implementation, but it is
likely more of a circular argument. Inmates are required to receive notification of the
restrictions and the basis for SAMs at the time of initial implementation and again when
restrictions are being renewed. In his January 17, 2020, Declaration, section 99, [REDACTED]
5
EFTA00028007
[REDACTED] states an inmate may challenge the SAMs through the BOP's Administrative
Remedy Program. During my 28 years with the BOP, there were times that I was
responsible for responding to Administrative Remedies. With certainty, I declare, for the
purpose of challenging a SAMs, it would be a futile process. The BOP exercises no
control/jurisdiction over SAMs imposed by the Attorney General. Wardens are bound to
abide by the SAMs imposed on an inmate. An inmate's only possibility of having his
SAMs reconsidered, would be for him to exhaust the Administrative Remedy process, so
he could file a motion with the Court.
14. [REDACTED] also points out in section 66, of his Fourth Supplemental Declaration, that
inmates' First Amendment rights are not violated under SAMs. He provides the example
that these inmates' have access to "free-flowing incoming and outgoing mail." As I
explain in my report, all mail for inmates classified under SAMs, is carefully reviewed
prior to ever reaching the intended recipient. Regardless of how innocuous something
may appear, if it does not meet with the approval of the reviewer, for any reason, that
piece of mail will be immediately rejected.
15. [REDACTED] provides in his Declaration the avenues for inmates to object to any SAMs
renewal. He advises an inmate will meet with his unit team and the supervising law
enforcement agency case agent, where he will be afforded the opportunity to present
evidence and/or discuss issues and provide information indicating there is no need to
extend SAMs, or why a modification to the restrictions are justified. The information is
compiled by the case manager and forwarded to the Warden through the institution's
legal department. All of this, in most cases, is an exercise in futility where a
recommendation for continued SAMs is involved. As a former senior executive of the
6
EFTA00028008
BOP, I do not know of any warden who would recommend discontinuing SAMs at the
possible risk of serious harm to others resulting or the potential for threats to national
security. It is not realistic and I can say with near certainty, it is not going to happen.
16. Likewise, in other scenarios suggested by [REDACTED] as avenues of appeal available
for an inmate, they are futile. He advises an inmate can object to his SAMs during his
twice-yearly unit team reviews, initial classification review, and when his progress report
is being prepared by his case manager. Having been a case manager for several years,
early on in my BOP career, it is unrealistic to think these avenues would provide anything
more than an outlet for an inmate under SAMs to vent his frustration. A case manager
may listen to his concerns: however, even if the case manager believed a change in status
was warranted, there is no possible way, that they would initiate a recommendation for
removal of the restricted measures. This type of recommendation is far above their
authority of a case manager or any member of an inmate's unit team.
17. [REDACTED] asserts these SAMs are imposed in, "up to one year" increments, with the
time-requirements the same for any extension beyond one year. During my term as
Warden at MCC New York, I have never seen an inmate have SAMs removed, only
extended.
18. [REDACTED] states that SAMs are not imposed for punitive reasons, but rather to
minimize a threat to national security or for other reasons not applicable in this case. By
strict definition of SAMs, it is correct to state it is not punitive, but the effects and
consequences of these administrative measures through my experience, are tortuous for
the recipient, and while technically not intended, feel punitive to those who have these
measures enforced upon them. Placement in this type of isolation, for any extended time
7
EFTA00028009
period is dehumanizing. In my opinion, any person with a conscience and an ounce of
compassion, would believe these extreme tactics utilized for any reason are cruel and
inhuman. Humane prison conditions, in my psyche, require more than just providing
basic necessities such as; food, clothing, shelter, medical care and safety to an inmate.
19. In his Fourth Supplemental Declaration, in section, 67, [REDACTED] implies that as
long as these basic needs are met, there is not a violation of an inmate's Eighth
Amendment rights. As a human being, and secondly, a warden, I had to justify in my
own mind, that this form of treatment against another, was out of necessity. I would
rationalize for myself, that because, I did not make the decision on who was subjected to
SAMs, I had no control over the implications and effects of these extreme measures.
Inmates under SAMs would often ask me why they were being punished so severely.
The majority of inmates I encountered under SAMs, were charged with an act of
terrorism against the United States. However, regardless of the criminal charges levied
against them, all SAMs inmates endured identical conditions. There was not a section for
terrorists and a separate section for large-scale drug offenders. If [REDACTED] is
extradited and subjected to SAMs, he will be treated similarly to all other prisoners under
SAMs. I have witnessed first-hand, these unduly harsh conditions experienced by
inmates under SAMs.
20. I know from my time at MCC New York, as Warden, even if I wanted to make
concessions, as a way to make living conditions more humane, I was restricted from
doing so. Small concessions, such as adding items to the commissary list for certain
holidays, was within my purview, however; the things that were substantial and mattered,
those things which could make a real difference, were not within my authority.
8
EFTA00028010
Florence ADX
21. In section 28, of his Fourth Supplemental Declaration, [REDACTED] accurately states
prison designations (post-sentencing), are decided by the BOP and many factors go into
the decision on where an offender will serve his sentence. As a former Designator for the
BOP, I clearly understand all the factors considered when determining placement for a
sentenced inmate. It is also my belief, as [REDACTED] states, the BOP's philosophy is
to secure inmates in the least restrictive environment commensurate with an inmate's
security needs. The problem with those inmates that are assigned SAMs, there are
limited choices. If the inmate isn't gravely ill, requiring placement at a Federal Medical
Center, regardless of the length of sentence, or any other factors, as suggested by [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], I don't believe there are other options, except for placement at the ADX. As
[REDACTED] provides in his second Affidavit dated July 16, 2020, if a conviction results
and [REDACTED] is assigned SAMs, he will very likely be housed in the Special Security
Unit (H Unit), at the ADX facility. I would agree with [REDACTED] assessment that if
convicted, [REDACTED] could potentially spend the remainder of his life in this very
restrictive housing unit, where he would be deprived of some very basic human needs.
22. [REDACTED] provides several exhibits which depict the desolate and degrading conditions
associated with placement at the ADX for an inmate who has imposed SAMs. In one
example, (Exhibit 13, Affidavit of [REDACTED], dated July 16, 2020), [REDACTED] quoted
one former ADX Warden as stating, how the ADX Supermax Prison is a "Fate Worse
Than Death", that was "Not Built For Humanity". [REDACTED] former Warden of the
ADX and previous collegue of mine, was a very respected and relied upon, BOP
Administrator.
9
EFTA00028011
23. In section 45, of [REDACTED] Fourth Supplemental Declaration, he states that
inmates incarcerated in H Unit at the ADX have the opportunity to participate in a multi-
phase program, that was designed primarily for inmates under SAMs. His summary is
absent any detail or description of what this program actually is. Based on what he
provided, I interpreted his portrayal of the "Program," as the actual Special Security
Housing Unit and not really a program at all. Any program involvement that would
encompass other inmates, would not only violate the conditions of SAMs, it would defy
the entire reasoning and intent of the assigned administrative measures.
24. In section 102, of his first Declaration, and in sections 28-29 of his fourth Supplemental
Declaration, [REDACTED] suggests not all inmates, post-conviction, who are under
SAMs, are housed at the Administrative Maximum Security United States Penitentiary,
(ADX), Florence, Colorado. He provides that if medically necessary, a SAMs offender
may be housed at a federal medical facility. He further contends, most inmates subject to
SAMs are housed at the ADX, but there may be circumstances that warrant housing
elsewhere. As someone who spent the majority of her adult life working for the BOP and
as a former Designator, who decided where inmates would serve their sentences, absent a
medical requirement, or a protected Witness Security Case, I am not familiar with any
alternative long-term options, aside from the ADX, for offenders under SAMs. Federal
Medical Centers, in my experience, are reserved for the very ill inmates, usually those
who have a life-threatening illness that requires on-going medical treatment not available
at other federal prisons. These medical facilities may also have an in-patient
psychiatric/mental health unit designed to house inmates who suffer from severe mental
illness.
10
EFTA00028012
25. In the affidavit of [REDACTED], she provides a very detailed account of the experience of
her client, Mostafa Kamel Mostafa, who is currently incarcerated at the ADX, assigned to
H-Unit, with SAMs assigned. I reviewed her Affidavit and based on my experience with
the BOP, especially my time spent as Warden at MCC New York, I find her descriptive
account of what life has been like for her client, Mr. Mostafa to be believable and
credible.
26. I arrived to MCC New York in 2014, after being promoted to Senior Executive Service
Warden from my former position as Warden of the FCI Danbury federal prison. I had
not previously worked at a facility where inmates assigned SAMs were housed. I clearly
remember Mr. Mostafa through my meetings with him during my rounds of the 10-South
SAMs Unit. I remember he was disabled, having gone through a bilateral amputation of
both forearms. I recall how difficult it was for him to attend to his basic hygiene needs
and how isolation in the 10-South unit was having detrimental effects on his mental well-
being. Until recently, I did not know that Mr. Mostafa was serving a life sentence at the
ADX and that SAMs was still in place in his case.
27. [REDACTED] provides a history of the legal challenges Mr. Mostafa has experienced and
provides a correlation to his conditions of confinement and that which would be
experienced by Mr. Assange, if extradited and placed under SAMs by the Attorney
General. I agree with her description of the devastating effects caused by isolation as a
result of SAMs. Similar to everything I previously provided in this report regarding
SAMs, she also provides in her statement. To describe the setting of the ADX and MCC
New York for inmates assigned to prolonged SAMs as unduly harsh, is an
understatement. In section 34 of her Affidavit, [REDACTED] provides the findings of the
11
EFTA00028013
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, specifically comments regarding the
High Court's views on a lengthy period of incarceration at the ADX in isolation.
28. The conditions of confinement experienced by Mr. Mostafa as outlined in detail in [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]' Affidavit, are the same conditions shared by other inmates who are assigned
under SAMs. Should Mr. Assange be extradited to the United States and assigned
SAMs, his fate will be equal to that of Mr. Mostafa. I am uncertain how the BOP has
been able to continue with these types of isolation units, given all the studies, reports and
findings of the horrific physical and psychological effects they have on inmates.
29. With the Court's decision in Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, generated by
inmates at the ADX and further explained in great detail in [REDACTED] report, some
accommodations have been made to help negate the effects of long- term isolation on an
inmates' emotional well-being. This decision does not contribute to the well-being of
those offenders under SAMs. As I explained throughout my report, the very premise of
SAMs is to prevent their contact with the outside world and especially, with other
inmates.
Communications Management Unit
30. There are extensive discussions in [REDACTED] Declarations and [REDACTED]
Affidavits regarding the possibility of a Communication Management Unit (CMU)
placement for Mr. Assange, if a conviction results in the charges against him. There are
two federal prisons which have a CMU, the United States Penitentiary (USP) Marion,
Illinois and the USP Terre Haute, Indiana. I was the Warden for a brief time at the
Marion facility and was responsible for overseeing the CMU at that institution.
12
EFTA00028014
31. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] provide very detailed descriptions of CMUs and each
offer their opinions about these types of prison environments. CMUs are a separate
prison within a prison, where almost every aspect of their prison life occurs within that
housing unit. I believe both individuals provide valid assessments of certain aspects of
the CMUs; however, I accept [REDACTED] description as more closely depicting the
realities and accuracies of these types of restrictive housing units. CMUs are not as
restrictive as the conditions associated with an inmate assigned under SAMs, but they are
far more limited than what is available at a mainline institution. At the Marion prison, a
small outdoor recreation area is available to the inmates; however, it does not remotely
offer the same exercise or recreational accommodations found at a regular prison facility.
There are tables set up in the outdoor recreation cages, where inmates can participate in
board or card games. There is limited space for outdoor walking and short of walking in
circles, or a short horizontal pattern, it is difficult for an inmate to engage in any
meaningful and healthy outdoor exercise.
32. Contrary to [REDACTED] assertion, inmates in CMUs are not afforded the same
opportunities as those available to inmates in general population, to communicate with
others, outside of the prison environment. Similar to the restrictive measures of SAMs,
all outside communication of these inmates must be live monitored by an FBI agent. All
telephone calls need to be scheduled in advance and an agent must be available to listen
and record any call with an inmate's family members. This is not as easily accomplished
as it appears. Agents are not always available on certain days or at certain times, and the
inmate's counselor must also be available to coordinate any telephone calls. All
13
EFTA00028015
incoming and outgoing mail is carefully scrutinized before delivery to the intended
recipient.
33. [REDACTED] accurately describes how social visiting in CMUs is limited and restrictive in
comparison to inmates in general population at other BOP facilities. Programs within
CMU's are also very limited and do not offer the same opportunities as those afforded to
inmates housed in the general population of the main section of the institution. During
my regular weekly rounds of the Marion CMU, I often had a barrage of complaints from
these inmates pertaining to the absolute boredom they experienced and lack of
meaningful programs in the unit.
34. The majority of inmates I encountered in the CMU, similar to what [REDACTED] depicts,
were convicted of domestic and international terrorist crimes, violent crimes against
others, threatening public officials and sometimes associated with anti-government
groups. The English language was not the first language of the majority of the inmates in
this unit, some did not speak English and Arabic was primarily the language in which
they conversed. A large contingent of these inmates were Muslim and some would only
associate with other inmates of the same ethnic and religious background.
35. Both [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] describe how inmates can appeal their placement in
a CMU. As [REDACTED] correctly points out, an inmate has the ability to challenge the
CMU decision through the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program. This four-tiered,
mainly internal, appeals process has various requirements, and is arduous and lengthy, as
suggested by [REDACTED]. It often results in a denial of whatever remedy the inmate is
requesting. I would confidently state that it is unlikely any inmate has ever been
successful in his appeal to be transferred out of the CMU. Inmates in the CMU receive
14
EFTA00028016
bi-annual Program Reviews, which are informal, scheduled meetings where they meet
with members of their unit team and discuss amongst other things, their continued
placement in the CMU. As Warden, I would meet with the CMU unit team staff and
discuss each case to determine if we believed there was a continued need for these types
of restrictive measures. A recommendation was then forwarded from the Warden to the
BOP's Counter-Terrorism Unit and finally to the BOP's Assistant Director of
Correctional Programs, for a final decision. During my assignment at USP Marion, I
recall only one time, where I made a recommendation for an inmate to be transferred out
of the CMU, but that recommendation was met with a denial. I do not recall any inmate
ever being transferred out of the CMU, other than a transfer to the sister-CMU at the USP
Terre Haute. Every individual must determine for themselves, if these procedures afford
an inmate due process or it is just a circumstance of which an inmate has no control or
recourse.
Declaration of Dr. [REDACTED] dated August 24th 2020
36. In her Declaration, Dr. [REDACTED] provides a detailed overview of mental health services
offered in the BOP. She accurately describes the types of inmates the BOP houses and
provides a plethora of programs offered to the inmate population through the institutions'
Psychology Services Departments.
37. Dr. [REDACTED] criticizes the findings made by [REDACTED] regarding psychologists
staffing levels throughout the BOP. She points out the BOP was recently authorized and
has started to recruit for 48 new psychologist positions. I believe the BOP is well-
intended on hiring additional psychologists to fill these vacancies. The problem, which
Dr. [REDACTED] does not mention, is the difficulty the BOP has in recruiting qualified
15
EFTA00028017
mental health professionals. Psychologist positions have always been considered "hard
to fill positions" in the BOP, presenting a significant challenge for the Agency.
Psychologists in the communities are often not interested in working in a prison
environment, the salaries offered are lower than what is offered in the private sectors, and
many federal prisons are located in very rural areas, all making a job as a psychologist
with the BOP, unattractive and difficult to successfully recruit. Often times, the Agency
would offer sign-on bonuses as a means to capture the attention of prospective
psychologists. Dr. [REDACTED] believes the BOP's staffing level of psychologists is
adequate and improving. I would only agree with Dr. [REDACTED] summation, if and
when, the BOP hires all of these new psychologists, and fills most of their current vacant
mental health staff positions, which will likely not occur anytime soon, or ever. For
purposes of the current staffing conditions, I find the information presented by [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] is accurate and realistic.
38. With regards to staffing levels in the BOP in general, there are opposing views between
[REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. The numbers with respect to staff to inmate ratios are
fluid and the BOP continues in their quest to recruit qualified staff. The Agency is
currently offering a 10% retention bonus for corrections officers at specific "hard-to-fill"
locations. The federal prisons in Florence, Colorado, including the ADX are on this list
with 16 other federal facilities. [REDACTED], in section 16 of his most recent
Supplemental Declaration refers to how all BOP staff, with the exception of a few, are
considered law enforcement and receive identical training as correctional officers. While
technically accurate, some of these staff have not received specific correctional officer
training since they began their careers several years ago. In his second Affidavit, in
16
EFTA00028018
section 13, [REDACTED] provides a very detailed and accurate explanation of how the BOP
handles staff shortages. The BOP utilizes this system of "Augmentation", throughout the
country on a regular basis. In my view, the BOP is continues to operate federal prisons,
while dangerously under-staffed. Position vacancies have been an ongoing challenge for
many years, and I see no quick resolution to this problem.
39. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (Exhibit 5 in Second Statement of [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]), criticized the BOP's staffing levels in their July 2017 Review of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons' Use of Restrictive Housing for Inmates with Mental Illness Report.
The OIG report demonstrated how the BOP was understaffed in mental health services
and not meeting the treatment needs of inmates with mental illness. The BOP's standard
is to have one psychologist for every 500 assigned inmates. Institutions reviewed during
OIG's inspection, fell significantly short in meeting this standard. As of October 2015,
during a time I was still employed with the BOP, the OIG found that only 57% of its
authorized Psychiatrist positions were filled. This Report further offers a detailed
description regarding the psychological damage and effects long term isolation can have
on inmates.
40. Dr. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] both refer to the 2014 report, Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment. In my opinion, the findings of the report
stand for themselves. Dr. [REDACTED] implies in section 37, of her Declaration, that
inmates are content at the ADX. She bases this assumption solely on inmates not
wanting to transfer to another federal prison. In my years of working in the prisons,
inmates would often express to me, they did not want to be transferred to another prison,
as just the idea of a transfer, to an unknown destination was in itself, anxiety-provoking
17
EFTA00028019
and frightening. Remaining at their current prison, regardless of the conditions
experienced, was a better option than having to start the process over again at a prison
which could end up being worse.
41. A variety of programs are provided in Dr. [REDACTED] Declaration, many of which I am
familiar with, having worked in many federal prisons during my career and three
Regional Offices. No doubt the BOP offers some viable inmate programs, including
residential programs, especially those available to inmates with mental health concerns.
There are specific programs designed to address Mr. Assange's diagnoses of Depression,
Anxiety, Asperger's Syndrome and others. The problem with this, as Dr. [REDACTED] also
points out, is that some of these specialized residential programs, such as the Skills
Program are only offered at a limited number of federal prisons. The Skills Program is
offered at the Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut and the Federal
Correctional Complex, Coleman, Florida. The security levels of these institutions are
Low and Medium Security, respectively. Mr. Assange would not qualify for placement
at either of these institutions, as he would likely be classified as a High Security Level
offender, making him ineligible for placement at Danbury or Coleman.
42. Irrespective of all of these programs available to inmates in the BOP, if a SAMs
assignment were placed on Mr. Assange, the restrictions which accompany this, will rule
out any possibility for him to engage in such activities and programs. The SAMs will
override the need for programs and will dictate what is allowed for Mr. Assange during
any period of incarceration. Safety and security will always be the primary goal of the
Agency and all other matters are secondary.
18
EFTA00028020
43. Dr. [REDACTED] makes reference to the psychological assessments of two medical
professionals who purported Mr. Assange would be an extreme high risk for suicide, if he
were extradited. I have reviewed these assessments, and similar to the concerns
expressed by the medical professionals, Mr. Assange's mental health and continuous
thoughts of harming himself are very troubling. All staff receive training on how to
respond to potentially suicidal inmates; however, we realize if a person wants to commit
suicide or in the course of events leading up to suicide, the individual changes their mind,
it unfortunately in most cases is too late, and the person is unable to be revived. The
example of August 2019 suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, at the MCC New York, comes to
mind.
44. Suicides in prison often occur in solitary confinement and during pre-trial status. With
the likelihood of Mr. Assange being housed in solitary confinement, he would be at
greater risk for suicide and/or self-harm. There are cameras on the ranges of the Unit,
but, as with the case of Jeffrey Epstein, those cameras malfunction, are not always
operable or left unattended.
45. If an instance occurred where Mr. Assange was in the act of committing suicide, staff in a
restrictive housing unit cannot render immediate assistance and would need to wait until
more staff arrive at the scene. It takes time for staff to respond to an emergency and they
are prohibited for their own safety, from entering the cell until enough staff are present.
The outcome would likely result in the death of death of Mr. Assange.
46. I do agree with Dr. [REDACTED] that the BOP has a robust suicide prevention program and
employs dedicated staff to treat offenders who present with mental health concerns. If
extradited to the United States, it is paramount that Mr. Assange's psychiatric reports
19
EFTA00028021
transfer with him, (these reports are not always provided by the transferring agency).
These reports would allow staff to be aware of his mental health history. During the
intake screening process, upon entering any federal facility, one of the prison
psychologists would assess him, through a series of questions, and determine Mr.
Assange's risk of suicide. This is where the systems of safeguard have proven not to be
effective. One of the primary tools utilized in a suicide assessment is the reliance on an
inmate to self-report in a truthful manner how he is feeling. When inmates are dishonest
about their suicide intentions, and they often are, (as in the case of Jeffrey Epstein), other
cues to determine the risk of self-harm may be missed which could result in a dire
outcome. If the assessment determines there is a present risk of taking his life, he would
be placed on suicide watch. Individuals who are on suicide watch, remain in that status
until the risk of suicide has significantly subsided.
47. As a former warden, I've personally had the unfortunate experience of receiving that
phone call, informing me of an inmate's successful suicide. In two of the cases I recall,
although other inmates were aware of the individuals' propensity and plans for suicide,
they failed to report it to staff. This could have made the difference between life or death
for those inmates. Regardless of how robust the Bureau of Prisons' Suicide Prevention
Program is, the Agency cannot prevent someone who is intent on committing suicide, and
too often inmates slip through the cracks.
48. Further in her Declaration, Dr. [REDACTED] provides a summation of when the BOP utilizes
restrictive housing for inmates and the reasons why an inmate would be placed in this
type of restrictive setting. She states the obvious reasons, such as the need to curtail the
actions of violent or aggressive inmates; however, she also infers restrictive housing is
20
EFTA00028022
utilized for inmates who are deemed a security threat or for those who cannot be safely
housed with other inmates in general population. This is a catch-all phrase that allows for
BOP staff to place any offender in restrictive housing based on their belief of any safety
concern.
49. An offender, with criminal conduct similar to Mr. Assange would be placed in restrictive
housing, regardless of any SAMs assignment, upon his arrival at every federal prison
throughout his entire term of imprisonment. The length of time he would remain in this
restrictive setting is impossible to predict. There have been many studies, investigations,
reports completed on the effects of prolonged placement in isolation. I have even
referenced an OIG report in this Declaration, which discusses this subject at length.
From my experience, of close to three decades of working in federal prisons, I would
agree that long term isolation can have serious negative effects on an inmate's mental
health. There are very limited programs offered to inmates in these restrictive settings,
including mental health programs. There may be occasional one-on-one intervention
with a mental health professional, but often that intervention will take place by
attempting to communicate through a steel door or the food slot built into the door. With
the limited number of Psychology Staff, time simply does not permit any type of
extensive individualized counseling with inmates in restrictive housing. It would take a
minimum of two staff, and sometimes more, depending on the security and custody level
of the inmate, to shackle the inmate, unlock his cell and escort him to another secure
location. If psychologists were to engage in this type of counseling, they would spend
their entire shift focusing solely on this limited group of inmates. It is not feasible to
expect that, especially given the already high demands of their caseloads, coupled with a
21
EFTA00028023
shortage of psychology staff as well as psychology staff being utilized to fill in for vacant
correctional officers' posts.
50. All of these policies which effect how the BOP manages and cares for mentally ill
inmates are specific and thorough. However, policies, regardless of how meaningful and
well-intended they are, for the reasons cited in the last paragraph, are not always carried-
out and coincide with what occurs in actual practice.
Declaration of Truth and Continuing Duty to Court
51. I understand that my primary duty is to the Court. I have complied with that duty and
will continue to comply with that duty. I have set out in my statement what I understand
from those instructing me to be the issues in respect of which my opinion as an expert is
required. All the matters on which I have expressed an opinion are within my field of
expertise.
52. I have done my best, in preparing this statement, to be accurate and complete. I have
mentioned all matters that I regard as relevant to the opinions I have expressed.
53. I have not included in this statement, anything which has been suggested to me by
anyone, including lawyers instructing me, without forming my own independent view of
the matters. At the time of signing the statement, I consider it to be complete and
accurate. I will notify those instructing me if, for any reason, I subsequently consider that
the report requires any correction or qualification.
54. I understand that this report will be evidence that I would be prepared to give under oath,
subject to any correction or qualification I may make before swearing to its veracity. I
confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are
within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are in my own knowledge I
22
EFTA00028024
confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete
professional opinions on the matter to which they refer.
55. I, Maureen Baird, attest under penalty of perjury that, on this 11th day of September
2020, this document is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief.
[Signature of Maureen P. Baird]
Maureen P. Baird
23
EFTA00028025