Tuesday, May 09, 2006


CONTACT: Keith Maydak
613 Cross Street
East McKeesport, PA 15035

May 9, 2006


Utica, New York
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

On May 2, 2006, United States District Judge David N. Hurd approved a settlement of $9,275.00 to be paid by the United States Government to Keith Maydak, 35 of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, based on a lawsuit filed in 1998 that alleged federal official at the Federal Correctional Institution at Ray Brook, New York, engaged in abuse constituting torture as retaliation for filing complaints.

The lawsuit alleged that, during 1998, Maydak was placed into a room without water facilities or food for five days while kept in handcuffs and shackles for allegedly “threatening the warden” with a lawsuit. During the period, Maydak only received a single apple and two pieces of bread as food. In addition, he was removed from the room only once to use toilet facilities.

After removal from restraints, federal officials placed Maydak in a small cell, designed for two people, with four other inmates (three of which had to sleep on the floor), for a six week period. As a result of the overcrowding, the floors were flooded with sewage and the food was spoiled, the lawsuit contended. Prison staff only allowed segregated inmates water for about ten minutes per day, resulting in dehydration.

“While I am pleased to settle this lawsuit without the need for a trial, the conditions at FCI Ray Brook have not improved. The federal prison continues to overcrowd and they do not allow inmates in segregation to flush their toilets despite the potential spread of hepatitis A, MRSA, and other bacterial based illnesses,” Maydak said. “People need to realize that the government isn’t just treating Iraqi prisoners inappropriately, but abuse is occurring by federal officials against United States citizens here at home.” Maydak attributes the problems to the lack of funding for prisons coupled with the increase in sentences for non-violent prisoners, which results in overcrowding and a strain on prison employees’ mental states.

The settlement also provided $1,000 to inmate Paul Lee who was not housed at the Ray Brook prison, but was at FCI Allenwood, Pennsylvania. Lee contended that federal agents violated his right to privacy protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 by giving false information to his investment broker. The settlement stipulates that the prison system will not interfere with inmates’ right to protect their legitimately obtained assets. “It took six years of litigation before the United States recognized that sabotaging inmates’ investments was improper, and I am pleased that the government chose to take responsibility.”

The settlement provides that the federal government does not admit to any wrongdoing.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Rogue Judge Sentences Keith Maydak to 24 Months After Delaying For 3 Years

Rogue United States District Judge Alan N. Bloch sentenced Keith Maydak to 24 months in prison for a supervised release violation. The penalty constitutes the maximum allowed by law. However, Maydak already served 3 years in jail while the malicious judge arbitrarily delayed and postponed the proceedings. Under 18 USC 3585(b), Maydak should be released from jail as soon as the Federal Bureau of Prisons computes his time. "Judge Bloch is a maniac. In about 50 years, I'll meet back with him in hell," Maydak told maydakupdate.com.

Judge Bloch, 73, made no comment as to the reason why he imposed the sentence he did. Maydak looks forward to being released so he can implement his plan to take over the world's financial markets. (:

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Lawless Judge Finally Schedules Sentencing Hearing For Keith Maydak

Keith Maydak has been detained without a bail hearing since September 29, 2002, based on an alleged supervised release violation. However, the maximum term of punishment is two years. The lawless Senior United States District Judge Alan N. Bloch invented excuse after excuse to delay the hearing. Now that Maydak served nearly a year over the maximum, rogue Judge Bloch set a hearing for September 22, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the United States Courthouse at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Maydak told maydakupdate.com, "This old coot does whatever he pleases because of his bitterness about his age and deterioating mental capacity. Judge Bloch should have stopped hearing cases years ago, but he chooses to inflict his misery and warped views upon everyone in his courtroom. His lack of thought facilities requires his resignation."

Judge Bloch's motives for detaining Maydak included a civil suit and critical websites.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Extradition Subject Keith Maydak Petitions Canada's Minister of Justice To Protest Unlawful Confinement Ten Months Past The Maximum Sentence

After detaining Keith Maydak for two years and one month for a probation-type violation that carries a maximum of two years, Canada nevertheless extradited him to the United States to "complete" the sentence. Despite assuring Canada that Maydak would receive credit for the detention, the United States courts refuse to sentence him or provide him a bail hearing.

Maydak lodged the following petition to Canada on August 7, 2005:

August 7, 2005

Hon. Irwin Cotler
Minister of Justice
c/o Department of Justice – Canada
International Assistance Group
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A OH8
via facsimile 1.613.957.8412 and 1.613.941.7865

In re: Extradition to the United States

Dear Justice Minister Cotler:

I am in receipt of the letter dated April 1, 2005, from Janet Henchey, General Counsel of the International Assistance Group, that responds to my petition to lodge a protest and / or to revoke the surrender order in this matter. Unfortunately, the communication neither formally denies my petition nor addresses the gravity of Canada’s deliberate indifference[1] to the present situation that includes indefinite detention and a complete deviation from normal procedure. As such, for the reasons discussed below, I am once again petitioning your office to lodge a protest with the United States of America and / or to revoke the surrender order. As I intend to seek judicial review from any failure to intervene and / or to transmit information to the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights,[2] I request an appealable decision by the Minister of Justice.

In fact, I allowed your office to surrender me prior to an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada based on the representations of your predecessor, and the information the Federal Prosecution Service provided to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, as to what would happen in terms of procedure and fairness on my return. However, as I predicted in my submissions to your predecessor, I am now being subjected to bizarre procedural actions that are not warranted under the statutory paradigm. Of course, the actions originate from the presiding judge who, as explained by the United States Marshals Service to Canadian immigration officials, sought protection because he believes, albeit erroneously, that I pose a threat to him.

I. Canada’s complicity in indefinite detention constituting cruel and unusual treatment
and punishment

In United States v. Johnson, [2002], 170 CCC(3d) 538 (Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeals held that detaining a person for longer than the prospective penalty on extradition is capable of being unjust or oppressive. Your predecessor distinguished this case by asserting that I would receive credit for the detention during the extradition proceedings. In addition, it was said that I could receive an additional year of supervised release.[3]

At the judicial review hearing, the panel of judges pointedly asked your counsel, Deborah Strachan, what would happen on return to the United States. Ms. Strachan unambiguously represented that a hearing would promptly occur and that I would be released shortly thereafter. Based on this, the Court of Appeal found my submissions that I would be subjected to arbitrary and prolonged confinement to be meritless.

Presently, I have been in the United States for over nine months, and have been detained, in totem, ten months past the maximum prospective sentence. No end to the detention appears in sight notwithstanding no basis in fact or law to justify the confinement.

While both Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States of America’s Constitution prohibit arbitrary detention and due process violations, it appears that the agents of the United States, along with your staff, are attempting to justify the indefinite detention by claiming that procedural protections (i.e., a formal sentencing hearing necessary to comport with due process) must occur prior to my release. Of course, such a position appears blatantly absurd especially in light of the fact that I have repeatedly stipulated to the maximum penalty.

I went so far as to waive my right to contest the supervised release allegations since no point exists in continuing to litigate a moot case. Nevertheless, I remain detained based on procedural gamesmanship.

The Court with precedental authority over my case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, made it clear that detaining a person longer than the maximum constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989). Canada’s Charter also prohibits this type of cruel treatment. Nevertheless, Canada remains willing to allow the United States to inflict the cruel and unusual treatment without protest.

II. The failure to comply with normal procedures to prevent the challenge to the arbitrary

As in Canada, the United States Constitution and criminal statutory provisions require prompt detention hearings to test the lawfulness of confinement. This is no different in supervised release proceedings. Specifically, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 governs supervised release. Rule 32.1(a)(1) requires that a person held in custody for violating probation or supervised release must be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge must inform the person of his rights. See Rule 32.1(a)(3). At that time, a detention hearing occurs and the magistrate judge may release or detain the person under 18 USC §3143(a). See Rule 32.1(a)(6). If detained, a person may seek an expedited detention appeal pursuant to 18 USC §3145.[4]

In my case, United States Marshals lodged me in the Allegheny County Jail on October 30, 2004. On November 1, 2004, it was incumbent upon the Government to schedule a Rule 32.1 hearing. It failed to do so. None of the procedural protections found in Rule 32.1 occurred.

On November 19, 2004, I filed a formal objection with the Court outlining the failure to comply with these provisions. On November 30, 2004, I filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Maydak v. Warden, Allegheny County Jail, 04cv1818 (WDPA). At the December 16, 2004, hearing, I noted my continued objection to ignoring these provisions. To date, the presiding judge ignored the objections and he refuses to address the habeas corpus petition. The Government caused me to be moved from Pennsylvania to Ohio forcing me to file the habeas a second time.

I note that it is the Prosecution’s obligation to immediately schedule a detention hearing when it is realized that the time limits passed. See United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 US 711, 721 (1990) (“Once the Government discovers that the [bail] time limits have expired, it may ask for a prompt detention hearing …”).[5] Nevertheless, the Americans have still not taken this step.

Clearly, the deviation from the procedure in this type of case demonstrates that I am being treated differently in retaliation for my exercise of due process rights.

III. Disavowment of Representations to Canada

During my efforts to secure release, I pointed out the United States’ assurances that I would receive credit for the time spent in Canadian custody. The United States disavowed its representation and claimed that the courts could not look to the amount of time I spent in jail. The Office of United States Attorney[6] went so far as to argue that Paul Hull, the Assistant U.S. Attorney that made the representations, was not competent or authorized to do so. However, the United States certified to Canada that the information was accurate. While the American Government does not deny that I will eventually obtain credit, its actions are meant to vindictively extend my excessive and unlawful detention.

Canada must take the steps to require that the representations made to it constitute more than empty assurances to better the legal position of the United States. Moreover, since other supervised release cases will come before your office, it seems prudent to require the United States to provide truthful details of the situation.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the above, Canada must immediately take steps to protest the conduct of the United States. Otherwise, the integrity of the extradition process will be at risk. The procedural posture of this case clearly infringes upon my right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment that both Canada and the United States are responsible for. No justification exists to continue my detention and the failure of the United States to follow their own procedures demonstrates bad faith. As such, the surrender order must be rescinded immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith Maydak

cc: Deborah Strachan, counsel
Fax: 604.666.1599

[1] Indeed, I understand that the International Assistance Group continues to administer supervised release extradition cases on behalf of the United States of America. Therefore, I trust that the present gamesmanship should cause concerns in all supervised release extraditions.

[2] Any transmittal shall be pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Procedure under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment.
[3] This continues to constitute a fallacy. If additional supervised release is issued, it could result in additional imprisonment because the absolute maximum detention is two years. 18 USC §3583(e)(3). Apparently, the presiding judge intends to use any additional term to continue the game of prolonged detentions under the guise of waiting months for a hearing.
[4] In addition, I was entitled to a preliminary hearing as well. See Rule 32.1(b)(1)(A).

[5] Montalvo-Murillo did not deal with aggravated or intentional failures to hold a prompt detention hearing. My case appears both aggravated and intentional.

[6] The Office of United States Attorney made the disavowments in several cases including: 05-1401 (3d Cir. 2005); 05-1871 (3d Cir.); and 05cv388 (WDPA). Yet, this is the same office that made its representations to Canada which were repeated to the Court of Appeal.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Documents Now Available on NOFLYLIST.COM For Download

NOFLYLIST.COM announces that the public can now download at no charge the FBI's "No Fly List" documents with redactions ... Go to NOFLYLIST.COM for further details.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Ohio Correctional Institution Inspection Committee Opens Formal Written Inquiry Into Overcrowding at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Institution

Corrections Corporation of America (ticker: CXW) overcrowds inmate living units at its Northeast Ohio Correctional Institution by forcing inmates to sleep on the floor. Inmate Keith Maydak filed a complaint letter to the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, Ohio's legislative committee that inspects Ohio prisons.

"CCA earns profits by overcrowding its facilities and providing inmates with substandard services," Keith Maydak told maydakupdate.com. CCA is a public company trading on the New York Stock Exchange using the symbol CXW.

On May 31, 2005, the CIIC opened a formal written inquiry based on complaints from inmates. CIIC Investigator Richard Spence notified Maydak of the inquiry through the following communication:


May 31, 2005

Dear Mr. Maydak:

Thank you for your letter that we recived on May 4, 2005. The Correctional Institution Inspection Committee (CIIC) is a legislative committee that inspects Ohio prisons and evaluates operations, conditions, programs, and the grievance procedure. The Committee may also make recommendations to assist in the development of any needed improvements. We welcome and appreciate communication from inmates and staff in Ohio prisons, for it helps us to identify problems or concerns that may need to be addressed.

Your letter listed the following concerns: 1) overcrowding in the housing, dining, and common areas, 2) understaffing by CCA to minimize expenses, 3) not utilizing all housing units to minimize expenses, 4) inadequate heating in the facility, and 5) high stress levels and increased altercations based on the previous factors.

Based on your input and the input of another inmate, the CIIC has submitted a formal written inquiry to Northeast Ohio Correctional Center Warden Robert Tapia for a formal response. If the response to the written inquiry is received prior to your departure from the facility, we will communicate information to you regarding your concerns.

Please understand that the CIIC has no decision-making authority in the above matters, but we remain interested in your situation and welcome future communication from you in that regard.

Richard Spence

Friday, May 20, 2005

Federal Court of Appeal Destroys Canadians' Right To Access Police Records

To avoid providing citizens and residents of Canada with any law enforcement files, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") routinely call all their files "investigatory materials," which are not disclosed to Canadians under the Privacy Act. In 2004, Federal Court of Canada Justice Rouleau ended the practice by requiring the RCMP to provide evidence that the files involve actual investgative activity.

Unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeal for Canada rules that practically anything involves an investigation for purposes of withholding police files. Justice Nadon, Noel, and Malone held that the words "investigation" and "investigate" are broad in their meaning.

In the decision made on appeal by the RCMP in a Privacy Act lawsuit filed by Keith Maydak, the Court found that mere email exchanges monitoring Court proceedings constituted an "investigation." The Court stated that the RCMP monitored extradition proceedings to eventually arrest Maydak notwithstanding the fact that they already had him in custody. "I was in jail, so the RCMP's excuse was a ruse to trick the Court," Maydak told maydakupdate.com.

"The decision effectively eliminates the ability for Canadians to access RCMP records. As such, the RCMP will continue to run rampant over the rights of Canadians," Maydak said. In the United States, federal law enforcement records can be obtained through privacy legislation unless they prove to the courts that harm could occur. "This is one area of the law that Canada is far behind other countries. A secret police force is the most dangerous thing to have and Canada needs to update its Privacy Act to overrule their disappointing decision," Maydak explained.

A copy of the appellate decision in Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Maydak, 2005 FCA 186 (May 19, 2005), can be found at:

Judge Rouleau's opinion, docketed at Maydak v. Solicitor General of Canada, 2004 FCT 1171 (Aug. 24, 2004), can be viewed at:

Contact: Keith Maydak