Martin Gottesfeld, the “guardian hacktivist” who allegedly initiated a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) campaign on Boston Children’s Hospital in protest of the hospital’s alleged medical kidnapping of Justina Pelletier, has filed his first appeal.
For approximately the last two years, Gottesfeld has been serving his prison sentence in FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit (CMU) in Terre Haute, Indiana.
There are only two know CMU facilities in the United States. According to the <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/cmus-federal-prison-system-s-experiment">Center for Constitutional Rights</a> (CCR), these special prison units reportedly house “dangerous terrorists and other high-risk inmates,” the vast majority of whom are Muslim.
Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with Gottesfeld’s attorney, Brandon Sample. During our brief interview, Sample discussed the primary points of Gottesfeld’s appeal, which was filed in July — including the Speedy Trial Act, alleged judicial conflicts of interest, and more.
Prior to reading to the following interview, it would be beneficial to read the pieces listed below:
<blockquote><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/story-martin-gottesfeld-hacktivist-who-faces-15-frank-camp">The Story Of Martin Gottesfeld: The Hacktivist Who Faces 15 Years In Jail For Trying To Save A Young Girl’s Life</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guardian-hacktivist-martin-gottesfeld-convicted-frank-camp">‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld Convicted; Faces Up To 15 Years In Prison</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prosecution-trying-keep-jailed-hacktivist-martin-frank-camp">Jailed Hacktivist Martin Gottesfeld Fires Back At Prosecutors Who Are Trying To Keep Him From Using ‘Torture’ Defense</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/potential-judicial-conflicts-interest-arise-martin-frank-camp">Potential Judicial Conflicts Of Interest Arise In Martin Gottesfeld ‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Case</a></blockquote>
The full text of the interview is below:
<blockquote>DW: Mr. Sample, you are Martin Gottesfeld&#8217;s attorney, and you just recently issued his appeal. Can you first give us a little bit of background about yourself and how you came to be where you are?
SAMPLE: I am a federal criminal defense attorney. I handle federal criminal cases around the United States. My office is located in a tiny town in Vermont, and prior to becoming an attorney, I was on the other side of the law. As a young man, I got into trouble and actually spent time in a federal prison, but committed myself while I was there to college and other productive activities.
And after my release, I [studied] for the LSAT to get into law school, was accepted to law school, finished law school, graduated magna cum laude, and passed the bar, and became an attorney. So I&#8217;ve been doing that for a number of years now.
DW: So how did you come to be associated with Martin Gottesfeld?
SAMPLE: I was referred. They were referred to me, actually, I think through another one of my clients that I represented, and I agreed to take his case on.
DW: You recently filed the appeal. When did you file that appeal?
SAMPLE: I filed that at the end of July.
DW: Can you walk me through the basic tentpoles of what the appeal is alleging, and what you&#8217;re trying to do with it, starting with the first major point of the appeal?
SAMPLE: Sure. There are several issues that are within the appeal, but a lot of them will seem technical in nature. There is a provision within the law called the Speedy Trial Act that requires the government to indict someone or bring them to trial within a specific period of time.
We are asserting that the Speedy Trial Act was not complied with in his case. That they took too long to indict him; that they utilized a process to purportedly permissibly extend the time period for [them] to file that indictment that was this secret process that the federal courts in Massachusetts have used for some time; and that that is not consistent with the Speedy Trial Act itself.
DW: Going further, what&#8217;s the next major issue that you&#8217;ve written about in the appeal?
SAMPLE: The next big issue deals with whether or not the magistrate judge who issued the search warrant in the case was neutral and detached, because her husband, who is a physician, was connected with some of the hospitals there in Boston. And since this whole case has to do with the attack on the computer infrastructure that was used not just by one hospital, but really there&#8217;s a lot of hospitals that participate. Harvard has a network that they make available to the other hospitals in Boston.
And so, the assertion there is that the judge should not have been involved in issuing that warrant in the first place—and any of the evidence that was obtained as a result of that warrant has therefore been improperly obtained.
DW: That&#8217;s Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler, correct?
SAMPLE: Yes.
DW: And so the next piece, I think, if I read the appeal correctly, was about Judge [Nathaniel] Gorton.
SAMPLE: Yeah. There&#8217;s several things that intertwine with Judge Gorton, some of which deal with his closure of the courtroom repeatedly. Marty would oftentimes, when there would be disputes or disagreements between him and his counsel, and the lawyers would want to talk about those things privately without the presence of the government or anybody else—and when Judge Gorton presided over those proceedings, he would accede to the request by the attorney and close the courtroom.
Marty&#8217;s asserting that that violated his right to a public trial. He&#8217;s also asserting that he had made a motion to recuse Judge Gorton on the basis that he wasn&#8217;t an impartial decision-maker—and that the judge, rather than actually substantively consider whether or not he should be recused, he had already made his mind up before those filings were ever really tendered.
In fact, there was a hearing, or a transcript of proceeding, where there was some suggestion that this is going to be denied when it&#8217;s ultimately filed, and then it ultimately was denied.
DW: And further, there&#8217;s the issue, if I recall correctly, of the inability to use the “defense of another” as Gottesfeld’s primary defense?
SAMPLE: So that issue also was raised, and, yes, the court had precluded him from raising that defense. And so, we are also arguing that that was improper; that the jury should have been allowed to make a determination of whether or not the defense of others excused Marty of any criminal liability.
DW: Are there any other major arguments that are at the thrust of this appeal—other than what we&#8217;ve talked about?
SAMPLE: The only other one deals with the judge’s refusal to allow one of his attorneys to withdraw from the case. And the lawyer had told the court in no uncertain terms that he didn&#8217;t believe that he could represent [Gottesfeld] effectively, that he wasn&#8217;t getting along with Marty, and that he wanted off the case—and the judge kept him on the case anyway.
In fact, that lawyer had told the court that he hadn&#8217;t talked to Marty, that he did not want to talk to him, that he could not represent Marty zealously, and that he did not have Marty&#8217;s full and undivided loyalty. So, I&#8217;m not sure what defendant would really want to have a lawyer like that, but the judge would not let him off the case.
DW: What do you think of this appeal? What do you think the timeline is going to be, and what do you think the strength of the appeal will be?
SAMPLE: I think the strengths in this appeal are really the Speedy Trial Act arguments. I think all these arguments are of course good, but I think that this Speedy Trial Act issue—while it would seem like most people would think of it as a technicality or something like that—is a very interesting issue, and it has a reasonable chance of success.
The timing of all of this, though, is going to show to be pretty lengthy, I believe. We filed our brief, the government is going to have an opportunity for them to respond. I think it&#8217;s going to take several months for them to get their responsive brief in. And then we will have the opportunity to file a reply.
Given the issues that have been raised in the appeal, I suspect that the First Circuit Court of Appeals will have oral argument. So very likely there wouldn&#8217;t be a decision in this case until some time next year.
DW: Do you speak with Marty regularly about the case? How is your communication with him given that he&#8217;s in the CMU (Communications Management Unit) at Terre Haute?
SAMPLE: We do communicate via email, and we have phone calls. And as of late, the Bureau of Prisons has allowed us to do WebEx meetings. But even then, the communication that I&#8217;ve had with him has been, I think, without question, the most challenging that I&#8217;ve ever had with any other client. And I say challenging not in the sense that his communication personally from Marty is difficult, but that when I would send, and when I do send him letters, for whatever reason, those letters sometimes don&#8217;t reach him for two and three weeks.
And I have other clients that are also in Indiana where he&#8217;s at in the CMU. They&#8217;re not in the same prison, maybe they&#8217;re at a county jail or something like that. They don&#8217;t seem to have any problem getting my mail. When he sends me things, they get lost, or they take forever to get to me—and it&#8217;s like some kind of black hole.
DW: This whole situation seems peculiar, to say the least. Not only the whole trial and the lack of recusal for the judges and the different alleged violations that took place, but the fact that they put him in such a high-security setting for the crime that he allegedly committed. Can you talk about the bizarreness of that?
SAMPLE: Yeah. Where he&#8217;s confined is where they put people who are typically terrorists. These are people that they want to watch every little move that they make, monitor all their communications.
He&#8217;s explained to me that in the CMU, when you&#8217;re there, they have rows of microphones that are out in the common area to capture everything that&#8217;s being said. And I don&#8217;t understand why someone who was convicted of breaking into some computers—doing this denial of service attack because he&#8217;s trying to help a sick little girl—why you would put them in this type of really, really restrictive housing.
It&#8217;s essentially one step below the administrative maximum, the ADX that&#8217;s in Florence. There&#8217;s not very much difference except that he&#8217;s not confined to his cell 24 hours a day. So, it does seem to be overkill, to say the least.
DW: What do you expect if this appeal is successful; what happens after that?
SAMPLE: If the court agrees with our arguments, for example, on the Speedy Trial Act, then that would result in dismissal of the indictment against him. And so, he would have no conviction at that point.
There&#8217;s a variety of different outcomes that could potentially flow from the arguments that have been raised in the appeal. If he wins, say for example, the argument that his lawyer should have been allowed off the case, well, then that would undo the conviction as well, and he would be entitled to another trial.
If the indictment is dismissed, then the government is going to have to make a decision about whether or not this is really a case that they want to prosecute all over again.
DW: Yeah, is it worth retrying?
SAMPLE: Yeah. Is it worth retrying, or do they feel that they&#8217;ve got their pound of flesh through everything that they&#8217;ve put Marty through over the past several years?
DW: Do you see this being successful, a strong case?
SAMPLE: The appeal? I think we have a really good chance. I do.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Brandon Sample for taking the time to speak with me for this interview. For more information on Martin Gottesfeld’s case, you can visit the <a href="https://freemartyg.com/">FreeMartyG</a> website, or follow the <a href="https://twitter.com/freemartyg?lang=en">FreeMartyG Twitter</a>.
The appeal can be read in its entirety <a href="https://freemartyg.com/brief-of-appellant-martin-gottesfeld">here</a>.

Martin Gottesfeld

INTERVIEW: ‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld’s Attorney Talks First Appeal Strategy

I recently received a letter from Martin Gottesfeld following the publication of the piece I wrote pertaining to his allegations against FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit (CMU), the secretive prison where he is being held.
With certain details understood, and looking to the postmark, the letter appears to have been written on or about January 8.
In the letter, Gottesfeld makes more allegations about what’s going on inside the prison, including that he is possibly going to be force fed due to his ongoing hunger strike. Gottesfeld also includes numerous names of the individuals with whom he is allegedly interacting. For purposes of this piece, any names that weren’t already published in my prior piece will be omitted.
Prior to reading this latest piece, it would behoove readers to check out my <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guardian-hacktivist-martin-gottesfeld-alleges-toxic-water-in-secretive-cmu-prison-where-hes-being-held-prison-responds">previous article</a> in which Gottesfeld alleges vile conditions inside the Terre Haute prison, including “toxic” water.
Gottesfeld writes:
<blockquote>Now I know how Justina must’ve felt. Against my will, the Indiana MLT [possibly medical laboratory technician] puts her needle in my arm and takes my blood. Her name may be [omitted], but I cannot say.
The Indiana RNs have me chained and put in two sets of handcuffs to do things to my body without my consent. The first one of them threatens me with violence if I don&#8217;t comply. Their names may be [omitted], but again, I cannot say.
They may work for Indiana medical doctor [omitted] and soon [omitted] may order them to strap down my limbs and head, shove a tube up my nose and down my throat and force-feed me as a result of my protected speech, yet again though, I cannot say.
They ignore my requests for an Indiana Health Care Proxy and don&#8217;t notify my emergency contacts because there is no emergency to justify what they&#8217;re doing and I don&#8217;t think they want their actions known. They&#8217;ve pushed my blood pressure from normal to 175/115, shackling my body and violating me.
I haven&#8217;t eaten in 30 days and I&#8217;ve lost 30 pounds – it&#8217;s the only way I feel I can resist what they&#8217;re doing since they won&#8217;t let me call the court and my mail to federal Judge Paul G. Gardephe doesn&#8217;t make it onto the docket anymore.
I had just reached out to Religious Freedom Attorney Brandon Sample – whom they seem to fear – when I believe DOJ Attorney Alexander J. Hogan, advisor [omitted], and case manager Rebekka Eisele had me put in solitary confinement without my case files or a desk on which to write. I believe they didn&#8217;t like what I was about to file.
A lieutenant here called a team of thugs dressed in riot gear to my cell where I asserted my Miranda rights and asked for an attorney. The lieutenant then tried to punish me further for asserting my right to an attorney. The lieutenant’s name may be [omitted].
The warden personally green-lit the team. His name may be [omitted]. I feel that the warden and the captain are trying to make my life increasingly miserable in order to bully me into silence. The captain ordered more chains and that my cell be searched three times per day even though I almost never leave between the searches, and the searches are timed so that I cannot get eight hours of sleep at night. I feel that the captain&#8217;s name may be [omitted]. I wonder if they&#8217;re planning to plant something in my cell. Three times per day seems excessive.
The facility should answer a FOIA for the first names of its staff.
I don&#8217;t want to leave without exposing this place or voiceless others here will continue suffering like Justina did, but I can&#8217;t tell President Trump either because of 28C.F. R § 504.203. I can&#8217;t write, “Please help,” because they may punish me.
I asked for an attorney again. Then a CO stole two of the pens that I bought from the prison. His name may be [omitted]. He may be the one who first escalated things, [and] his retaliation may be unconstitutional.</blockquote>
It must be stressed that claims made by Gottesfeld cannot be independently verified. I reached out to FCI Terre Haute for comment twice by email, but as of publication, I have not received a reply. I also called the prison, but my calls went unanswered.
When Gottesfeld speaks of “Justina,” he is referencing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-daily-wire-speaks-father-alleged-medical-frank-camp">Justina Pelletier</a>, the young teenage girl who was allegedly medically kidnapped by Boston Children’s Hospital. When the Pelletier case was ongoing, Gottesfeld reportedly initiated a DDoS campaign against the hospital in order to draw attention to the alleged medical kidnapping.
Gottesfeld was tried and found guilty of conspiracy to intentionally damage a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371, and intentional damage to protected computers in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (a)(5)(A), and sentenced to prison.
He eventually landed in FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit (CMU), which is a secretive prison within the larger prison body in Terre Haute, Indiana.
There are only two known Communications Management Units in the United States – one in Terre Haute, and the other in Marion, Illinois. According to the <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/cmus-federal-prison-system-s-experiment">Center for Constitutional Rights</a> (CCR), these special prison units reportedly house “dangerous terrorists and other high-risk inmates,” the vast majority of whom are Muslim.
The inmates in these secretive CMUs are closely monitored, and have restricted access to computers. Their communication with the outside world, even family, is severely limited, and sometimes nonexistent, reports CCR.
As for whether or not Gottesfeld’s hunger strike is protected by the Constitution, I consulted UCLA law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, who said:
<blockquote>Prisoners have much-reduced constitutional rights – for instance, against searches and seizures, against speech restrictions, and more. There is a general constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, which might well extend to refusing food; but that too is sharply reduced for prisoners. Because of that, the great majority of courts that have considered force-feeding of hunger-striking inmates have held that such force-feeding is constitutionally permissible, as a means of preserving the inmates’ lives and of preventing disturbances among other prisoners; the D.C. Circuit’s 2014 decision in Aamer v. Obama summarizes the matter well.</blockquote>
In the 2014 Aamer v. Obama opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel writes in part:
<blockquote>&#8230;given the government&#8217;s own description of its force-feeding protocol — we have no doubt that force-feeding is a painful and invasive process that raises serious ethical concerns.
For petitioners to be entitled to injunctive relief, however, it is not enough for us to say that force-feeding may cause physical pain, invade bodily integrity, or even implicate petitioners&#8217; fundamental individual rights. This is a court of law, not an arbiter of medical ethics, and as such we must view this case through Turner&#8217;s restrictive lens. The very premise of Turner is that a &#8220;prison regulation [that] impinges on inmates&#8217; constitutional rights&#8221; may nonetheless be &#8220;valid.&#8221; <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,33">Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254</a>. That is, although &#8220;[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution,&#8221; they do substantially change the nature and scope of those constitutional protections, as well as the degree of scrutiny that courts will employ in assessing alleged violations. Id. at 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254; see <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8145731021014747017&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,33">Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948)</a> (&#8220;Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.&#8221;). Thus, even if force-feeding &#8220;burdens fundamental rights,&#8221; <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,33">Turner, 482 U.S. at 87, 107 S.Ct. 2254,</a> Turner makes clear that a federal court may step in only if the practice is not &#8220;reasonably related to legitimate penological interests,&#8221; id. at 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254.
The government has identified two penological interests at stake here: preserving the lives of those in its custody and maintaining security and discipline in the detention facility. As the government emphasizes, many courts have concluded that such interests are legitimate and justify prison officials&#8217; force-feeding of hunger-striking inmates.</blockquote>
Martin Gottesfeld has now filed his first appeal to have his case re-examined, and has retained a layer.
For more information from Gottesfeld’s perspective, you can check out the official <a href="https://freemartyg.com/">FreeMartyG</a> website.

Martin and Dana Gottesfeld.

UPDATE: Gottesfeld Writes From Prison; Claims He Has Been ‘Threatened With Violence’ And Might Be ‘Force Fed’

Prison

On August 1, 2018, Martin Gottesfeld was found guilty of conspiracy to intentionally damage a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371, and intentional damage to protected computers in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (a)(5)(A).
Gottesfeld is the “guardian hacktivist” who allegedly initiated a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) campaign on Boston Children’s Hospital in protest of the hospital’s alleged medical kidnapping of Justina Pelletier.
I’ve been covering the Gottesfeld case for approximately two years now. You can read my previous coverage of his case (and Justina’s) below:
<blockquote><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/story-martin-gottesfeld-hacktivist-who-faces-15-frank-camp">The Story Of Martin Gottesfeld: The Hacktivist Who Faces 15 Years In Jail For Trying To Save A Young Girl’s Life</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guardian-hacktivist-martin-gottesfeld-convicted-frank-camp">‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld Convicted; Faces Up To 15 Years In Prison</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prosecution-trying-keep-jailed-hacktivist-martin-frank-camp">Jailed Hacktivist Martin Gottesfeld Fires Back At Prosecutors Who Are Trying To Keep Him From Using ‘Torture’ Defense</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/potential-judicial-conflicts-interest-arise-martin-frank-camp">Potential Judicial Conflicts Of Interest Arise In Martin Gottesfeld ‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Case</a></blockquote>
In November 2016, while in custody and awaiting trial, Martin Gottesfeld was remanded to the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City. While in the MCC, Gottesfeld was allegedly placed in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU, sometimes called “special housing,” depending on the prison) for 81 days.
Following his conviction in 2018, Gottesfeld was transferred through several prisons, eventually landing in FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit (CMU) in Terre Haute, Indiana.
There are only two known Communications Management Units in the United States – one in Terre Haute, and the other in Marion, Illinois. According to the <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/cmus-federal-prison-system-s-experiment">Center for Constitutional Rights</a> (CCR), these special prison units reportedly house “dangerous terrorists and other high-risk inmates,” the vast majority of whom are Muslim.
The inmates in these secretive CMUs are closely monitored, and have restricted access to computers. Their communication with the outside world, even family, is severely limited, and sometimes nonexistent, reports CCR.
As of publication, Martin Gottesfeld’s wife Dana hasn’t spoken with her husband for more than eight months. The only means by which Dana and others can glimpse Gottesfeld’s activities is via court filings in his ongoing lawsuit with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP).
Rewind.
In November 2018, while Martin Gottesfeld was in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts, he <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.2.0.pdf">filed a lawsuit</a> against acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) Hugh J. Hurwitz, acting Deputy Director of the U.S. Marshall Service David Anderson, MCC Warden Esker Tatum, and MCC Medical Director Anthony Bussonich, alleging mistreatment while in the Metropolitan Correctional Center.
Gottesfeld claims in the lawsuit that he “never received written notice of the reason(s) for his placement in the SHU as required by 28 CFR 541.25 [a federal regulation],” and that he “was never offered the opportunity to attend any administrative detention hearing.” Gottesfeld even contends that “no such hearing(s) were ever conducted.”
According to Gottesfeld, who at that point had begun a hunger strike, the conditions in the SHU were objectionable, with “an uncontrolled rodent and insect infestation,” and poor ventilation.
<blockquote>The temperature in the SHU regularly approached that of the outdoors during the winter due to insufficient insulation in the exterior walls. Rather than fix the building or leave the heat at a sufficient level, the eventual amelioration effort of the MCC administration weeks after the problem’s annual emergence in late-2016 was to hand out thermal underwear, which did not cover the face, feet, or hands.</blockquote>
Gottesfeld also alleges that Medical Director Anthony Bussonich threatened to force-feed him during his “constitutionally-protected” hunger strike.
In a January 2017 <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/martin-gottesfeld-letter-new-york-prison_n_58879bede4b0b481c76b4498">letter</a> to then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) Thomas R. Kane, Gottesfeld wrote that “roaches are found in the food, and I have personally observed insect eggs as well.”
Gottesfeld added that certain cells “have hit the 50-degree range, while others are much colder,” and alleged that the warden turned up the heat to sufficient levels on inspection days before turning it back down.
<blockquote>There are also water leaks all over at least the 9th and 10th floors, with visible signs of rust and corrosion. Not only does this potentially impact the structural stability of the building, but the pools of standing water [resulting from the leaks] are a breeding ground for infection.</blockquote>
Since the lawsuit was filed in November 2018, the defense, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Alexander J. Hogan, has moved to have it <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.53.0.pdf">dismissed</a> on multiple grounds.
Gottesfeld has been able to effectively communicate with the outside world via court filings in the ongoing lawsuit. In a series of articles, Gottesfeld and former inmate Francis Schaefer Cox described alleged heinous conditions inside FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit. The pair even described an alleged CMU inmate homicide, which reportedly took place in November of 2018.
In a court <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.69.0.pdf">document</a> filed on August 12, 2019, Gottesfeld wrote about the alleged conditions inside the CMU and the CMU’s special housing unit (SHU), reportedly nicknamed “the burrito cooker” because a steam pipe allegedly runs underneath the floor that emits so much heat, one can reportedly cook food on the floor:
<blockquote>Multiple other survivors credibly and uniformly detail inhumane conditions during their extended stays in the FCI Terre Haute CMU&#8217;s &#8220;special housing unit,&#8221; including extreme heat, lack of ventilation, insect infestation, sleep deprivation due to constant loud noises, and contaminated drinking water that is known to cause convulsive vomiting and dangerously dehydrating diarrhea.
Without a single exception, these survivors all also described being deprived of their legal work, writing implements, paper, and postage stamps, thus leaving them unable to reach the courts despite sometimes facing imminent filing deadlines.
Those in the CMUs, moreover, cannot confidentially contact the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is the internal watchdog for the DOJ, so the inability of CMU inmates to send reports to the OIG without the FBOP pre-screening them presents serious issues and conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal inmates elsewhere can send private electronic messages to the OIG instantaneously, but not those in the CMUs.</blockquote>
A former inmate at the FCI Terre Haute CMU appears to corroborate Gottesfeld’s assertions about the conditions inside the facility, calling the cells hot and incredibly dirty. This former inmate also claims that the water does not run clear, has a terrible smell, and leaves corrosive marks in the toilets and sinks.
I reached out to FCI Terre Haute for comment on the allegations regarding the water, and received the following reply from Public Information Officer (PIO) Jenna Epplin:
<blockquote>Every staff member and inmate at FCC Terre Haute is provided with potable, non-toxic, drinking water. All drinking water at FCC Terre Haute is tested monthly, at a minimum, and is compliant with the State of Indiana’s Drinking Water Permit, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The water is tested by a third party agency and the results are sent directly to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for review.</blockquote>
Asked to comment on CMU inmates’ ability to speak with the Office of the Inspector General, PIO Epplin stated: “Inmates are afforded the opportunity to contact the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) directly, if they so chose. Inmates can add the phone number to their approved phone list or write a letter directly to OIG.”
I further asked Epplin: “Can inmates contact the OIG anonymously and without being monitored?” As of publication, Epplin has not replied. Additionally, the OIG has yet to return my request for comment.
When asked about Gottesfeld’s alleged placement in the SHU, as well as the claims of “insect infestation,” Epplin stated: “We do not discuss conditions of confinement for safety and security reasons.”
According to Gottesfeld, there was a <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.69.0.pdf">radical Islamic-inspired murder</a> that took place in the FCI Terre Haute CMU in November 2018. The alleged victim’s name was Robert David Neal.
Writing alongside Gottesfeld in the court document, Francis Schaeffer Cox reports that 68-year-old Neal’s alleged attacker stabbed Neal, then attempted to decapitate Neal with a wire. Following his murder of Robert Neal, the alleged attacker proceeded to stab another inmate approximately 12 times. The inmate reportedly survived.
There is little information available to the public about the alleged murder. The only news outlet to report on it was the <a href="https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/death-of-terre-haute-federal-prisoner-under-investigation/article_f0e44ec2-bcfe-5046-b97e-9c6770f0eb79.html">Tribune-Star</a>, which wrote in part:
<blockquote>An investigation continues into Saturday&#8217;s death of an inmate at the federal prison in Terre Haute. The manner of death of Robert David Neal, 68, was a homicide, Vigo County Coroner Susan Amos said Wednesday. She declined to release further information about his death due to the ongoing investigation.</blockquote>
When asked about the investigation of the alleged murder of Robert David Neal, PIO Epplin stated: “The investigation into the death of inmate Robert David Neal is being handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
The FBOP Office of Public Affairs declined to comment on the case, and the FBI didn’t provide me with any new information.
Fast-forward to December 2019.
In a recent <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">court filing</a>, Gottesfeld claims that he filed a “motion for sanctions” against Hogan. Separately, on December 6, Gottesfeld asked for a “true copy” of his “order of commitment.”
It was after these two filings that Gottesfeld was allegedly placed in the Communications Management Unit SHU.
According to D.C. Code 16-1905: “A person committed or detained, or a person in his behalf, may demand a true copy of the warrant of commitment or detainer. An officer or other person detaining a person, who refuses or neglects to deliver to him or to a person in his behalf a true copy of the warrant of commitment or detainer, if one exists, within 6 hours after the demand, shall forfeit to the party so detained the sum of $500.”
Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">contends</a> in the filing that the only order of commitment he ever received was “missing the required seal of the court, the signature of the clerk, and the signature of a U.S. Marshal.” He also states that in his request for the order of commitment, he closely mirrored the language in the relevant code in order to “avoid &#8230; ambiguities.”
However, according to Gottesfeld’s filing, one Rebekka Eisele filed an incident report claiming that he had attempted to “extort” some 73 “individuals, agencies, and entities” by demanding a copy of his order of commitment under the law.
Gottesfeld doesn’t believe that Eisele actually penned the report herself, given the language used, as well as what he perceives to be an idiosyncrasy between her in-person behavior and what is written in the document.
<blockquote>In contrast to Ms. Eisele&#8217;s actual demeanor, whoever wrote the incident report claimed, “I feel threatened by inmate Gottesfeld’s demands and I believe he is trying to extort me&#8230; Inmate Gottesfeld is attempting to intimidate and compel me&#8230; by threat of financial demise.” Of course, demanding a “statutorily-authorized sum” with citation to a specific, applicable statute, such as D.C. Code § 16-1905, cannot be “extor[tion]”.</blockquote>
Gottesfeld claims that while Eislele has nothing to gain from him being placed in the SHU, Hogan and his clients do.
“With me in the SHU, [Hogan&#8217;s] opponent is significantly hamstrung in contesting whatever he may file,” writes Gottesfeld, “including motions for extensions, and a motion to withdraw or otherwise contest his client&#8217;s admissions.”
Gottesfeld also contends that he has “no access whatsoever” to a typewriter or a desk while in the Communications Management Unit SHU, and restricted access to a legal library.
<blockquote>I served upon AUSA Hogan a motion for sanctions &#8230; the merits of which I cannot yet bring before The Court due to the twenty-one-day safe-harbor provision of Fed.R.Civ.P.11(c). Fearful of retaliation from AUSA Hogan, the defendants in the case, and their agents here at FCI Terre Haute, I mailed a copy of the motion to a licensed attorney in Brooklyn for safekeeping and filing by my next friend in the case of interference here at the FCI.</blockquote>
[The attorney to whom Gottesfeld mailed his motion has come forward, and revealed their copy of the document.]
In the filing, Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">writes</a>:
<blockquote>On Monday evening, December 9th, 2019 – after AUSA Hogan was served the motion, but before I could file it with The Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) – agents of AUSA Hogan and the defendants in the case placed me in the SHU inside the FCI Terre Haute CMU.</blockquote>
Two days after allegedly being placed in the SHU, Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">claims</a> that one Captain Bragan of the FBOP said the following to him: “You know why you&#8217;re here, right?”
“I take Captain [Bragan’s] meaning to signify that the defendants in the case and AUSA Hogan want me to know that they are displeased with my recent motion practice, particularly the motion for sanctions,” Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">writes</a>.
Gottesfeld states in his filing that while in the SHU at FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit, the only water to which he has access is from the sink. He writes that the water is “<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">toxic</a>” and appears corrosive of the metal basin. He further states that the only time he is able to drink is during the three times a week he is allowed to shower, and that a CMU medical professional allegedly had to administer fluids intravenously at one point.
Although the secretive CMU isn’t forthcoming with details, an individual with a second-hand knowledge of the situation at the facility told me that the water is indeed potable, and that Gottesfeld’s claims cannot be true.
At this point, it is critical to note that the veracity of Gottesfeld’s claims pertaining to the conditions in the Communications Management Unit cannot be independently verified.
This is due, in part, to the cloak of secrecy surrounding the CMU. Additionally, it’s highly unlikely that those heading an institution where abuses have been alleged to have taken place would readily admit that such abuses were taking place under their supervision. The same applies to employees of said institution.
I have reached out to multiple former and current employees of FCI Terre Haute in order to corroborate the conditions alleged by Gottesfeld. Several employees (current and retired) have rebuffed my requests for comment. I have also twice reached out to AUSA Hogan for comment on the ongoing litigation between his clients and Gottesfeld. As of publication, he has not replied.
Martin Gottesfeld has now filed his first appeal to have his case re-examined. Wife Dana and the Gottesfeld family are attempting to raise $50,000 to retain a new attorney for the appeal, even starting a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/hire-appeals-lawyer-for-marty">GoFundMe</a>.
For more information, you can check out the official <a href="https://freemartyg.com/">FreeMartyG</a> website.
Editor’s Note: An error has been corrected. A previous version of this article used the name “Captain Brogan,” which has now been replaced with “Bragan.”

Menu

Martin Gottesfeld

INTERVIEW: ‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld’s Attorney Talks First Appeal Strategy

UPDATE: Gottesfeld Writes From Prison; Claims He Has Been ‘Threatened With Violence’ And Might Be ‘Force Fed’

‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld Alleges ‘Toxic’ Water In Secretive CMU Prison Where He’s Being Held. Prison Responds.