VIRGINIA CODE 19.2-11.14 IS NOT ONLY VAGUE IN ITS DEFINITION OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (VADOC) USE OF A.I. (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE), BUT IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TESTED IN COURT By William Thorpe

Pictures are taken from the internet and are used for illustrative purposes only

The Virginia Prison Official and The Virginia Department of Corrections have been using and applying A.I.(Artificial Intelligence) or Machine Learning in its various forms for a while now. But that is not the prompt for this work. What I want to simply stress is without the focus and attention of the People of Virginia on how every and anything are done by the various forces of the States Organized-Violence arrayed in their name claiming and alleging to be functioning in their interest, including the use of A.I., we will once again be confronted with another emergence of Contradictions and Antagonisms to be resolved, even as we are still contending with antagonisms form the 19th Century. So before this baby A.I. grows into that proverbial behemoth 1000 Ib Gorilla, we should compel the necessary transparency of its use by the Virginia Prison Official while there is National attention on it. As it currently stands, the Virginia Department of Corrections has established OPERATING PROCEDURE 435.5--ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY SUPERVISION PROGRAM/A.I. ADJACENT SYSTEMS and it has been updated from 2024-2026,having as authority VIRGINIA CODE 19.2-11.14 USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED TOOL. The law has the typical verbiage, when Politicians are not too keen on saying what they supposedly are. Which will then need and require Judges in Courts to flesh it out based on actions presented. But most importantly it is an issue to be elevated by the People by making it into a Campaign issue beyond the formulations of the anti-Data Center Speech (and when I say Speech, what I mean is that motive of positive work or "Political Action"). So VADOC's O.P.435.5: Governs ELECTRONIC MONITORING (EM), GPS SATELLITE TRACKING, VOICE RECOGNITION MONITORING, ELECTRONIC MONITORING SOFTWARE ON PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICES (PEDs), [VADOC doesn't describe this capability as A.I., but are Algorithmic surveillance systems, that (a) TRACK MOVEMENT (b) TRIGGER AUTOMATED ALERTS (c) IDENTITY VERIFICATION (d) ENFORCE INCLUSION/EXCLUSION ZONES (e) AUTOMATED SCHEDULE COMPLIANT CHECKS. VADOC's--APPLICATION:1.1 EM- [Telephone based or Transmitter based devices continuously 24/7 monitoring via private vendor systems. Automated alerts for violations (curfew, schedules, zone breaches). Alerts are algorithmically generated by vendor software]. 1.2 GPS MONITORING- [For High Risk cases (see HAMLET v. IRVIN 2024 U.S.DIST. LEXIS 81233 for analysis of VADOC's description of High Risk), Real time satellite tracking, Automated Geofencing (inclusion/exclusion zones) (see CHATERIE v. UNITED STATES 146 S. Ct. 2193 for precedent setting ruling on Geofencing under 4th amendment construction, but isn't necessarily applicable to prison), Automated violation notification-Algorithmic location surveillance, not human].1.3 VOICE RECOGNITION MONITORING--[This is closest to A.I within VADOC's Documented Procedure, Uses voice biometrics to verify identity, compares prisoner, probationer, parolees voice sample to stored templates, Automated compliance checks, Voice biometrics are machine-learning based, even though VADOC does not label it such].1.4 MONITORING SOFTWARE ON PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICES (PED's)--[VADOC can install monitoring software on Phones, Tablets, Computers. Tracking use, log communications, enforce restrictions, generate automated alerts. This is algorithmic surveillance not human]. NOTE: VIRGINIA CODE 19.2-11.14 [USE OF A.I.] Purports to define VADOC's use and application of A.I., however there isn't any transparent, verifiable proof that VADOC is complying. VADOC may use A.I.. or algorithmic tools but cannot make decisions solely based on A.I. outputs. A.I, recommendations must be reviewed, validated by a Human and A.I. outputs can be challenged just as one would evidence in court proceedings.[NOTE: but to what extent does the typical Virginia prisoner, Family, Ally and Friend have the necessary resources to engage in the sort of struggle with the Virginia prison official, if and when it comes to light that the prison official has violated Virginia Code 19.2-11.14 and Operating Procedure 435.5 ?. This conclusion begins to show why the politicization of the issue of the transparency of A.I. use by the Virginia prison official is primarily an electoral and campaign issue and the People of Virginia must compel its relative framing as such by prospective Politicians seeking leadership Speech in the Commonwealth.] Secondly there has been a proposed expansion of Va. Code 19.2-11.14 by HB 1170 presuming a more defined oversight, but to date, the Bill is yet to develop. Thirdly, there hasn't been a clear evidence and indication that the Virginia prison official is deploying A.I.in the prohibited ways of (1) PREDICTIVE RISK ASSESSEMENT, (2) RECIDIVISM PREDICTION [NOTE: There is circumstantial and logical inference, that the infamous and obsequious to reactionary suppositions and politics, former Director of The Virginia Department of Corrections Harold Clarke revealed such a violation, to the Virginia Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee on May 17,2022 with the proffer that "54% of [Virginia] prisoners scheduled for release due to the Earned Sentence Credit law have a medium to high risk of violent recidivism", (my comments on Clarke's assertions are in the work HAROLD CLARKE,DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE 54%,which a net search will produce)] (3) PRISONER CLASSIFICATION, (4) DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS, (5) FACIAL RECOGNITION INSIDE PRISONS, (6) BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS, (7) CONTRABAND DETECTION, (8) EMAIL e.t.c SCANNING [NOTE: more information can be found at HTTPS://VADOC.GOV./FILES/OPERATING PROCEDURES/400].

THE VIRGINIA PRISON OFFICIAL USE OF A.I. (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE) and ADJACENT SYSTEMS MUST BE TRANSPARENT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA The case KECK v. COMMONWEALTH 2011 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 115795, revealed what the edge of the probable and possible gratuitous violations of the imprisoned Virginian, as it relates to its opportunity always being present for the Prison employee, whom the People of Virginia have accorded the privilege of performing their wishes of imprisoning their fellow socio-person looks like. Because Donald P. Keck, employed as a Psychology Associate by the Virginia Department of Corrections at its Powhatan Correctional Center, was caught concealing Virginia prisoner information on his work computer. Keck as a human being and socio-person is irrelevant to our work, save to show, evidence and embody our Speech, that the Virginia prison official and the Virginia Department of Corrections as it concerns the application of A.I and it corollaries cannot be allowed to continue on in the antiquated vein of self-policing, because our sensibilities are comprehensively strafed with facts upon facts, not conjecture but events. From Harold Clarke agitating against the Earned Sentence Credits law and the Virginia Peoples wishes, with the enfeebled fear mongering, highly probably generated A.I. hallucinations that 54% of released prisoners would violently reoffend, to the sordid incident of Donald P. Keck malfeasantly squirreling data of the life existence of imprisoned Virginians on a computer through the dehumanization of the Virginia Prisoner by the prison official.

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .

SO YOU FEEL THAT PRISON REFORM IN VIRGINIA IS A JOKE MEANING THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA ARE A JOKE By William Thorpe

Pictures are taken from the internet and are used for illustrative purposes only

Recently there was an anonymous comment to my WORD MEANING, work, that and I paraphrase, they agreed with the point I was making, which they claimed to have also been making, then they concluded with prison reform in Virginia is a joke. Now regardless of and besides its mindset and intention, there are certain incontrovertible and unimpeachable facts defining any and all Reform push including that of Virginia's imprisonment scheme. Which irrespective of "intent "expression are irrefutable. In other words if the purpose or intention of the critique is to discredit or demoralize the energy exerted in the push for reform, which the anonymous comment referenced can be in its mold. Or it is evidence of dissatisfaction with the circumstances of the reform formulation and agitation and as such always turns out to be is due to the undisciplined presence of idealistic assumptions and the luxury of taking things for granted. The reality is, just as it is opposing the reform formulation, it is also (and this is where we find its true significance) enabling the emerging contours and definitions of Reform, to stand clearly, revealed pulsating with its undeniable logic. Which in our case is Virginia's imprisonment scheme, to stand revealed in all its practical legitimacy. What I mean by, practical legitimacy, is this: the work of Reform is specifically about introducing and exposing, to the People an exposé narrative of the existence of that which is to be reformed, or in other words a reminder of its history and origin, that is a compromising fallacy of what the People have come to accept, hold and understand not merely as true, but most importantly to be in the interest of their all around realized development. In other words the People upon encountering that inevitability of the critique, or exposé, which the object of reform has forever anticipated and expected would arrive, find themselves naturally existing DIS-ORGANIZED, untethered from the controlling Social Contract suppositions of what they once accepted, defined and tolerated its yoke as Tradition, as truth of existence of socio-personhood. Because it isn't that the Reform Push, is at odds with Social Contract, but Reform's Speech is wrangling clarity and honesty to the word meaning of "interest", which as it concerns our work, Virginia's imprisonment scheme. Meaning Virginia's imprisonment scheme "has" an interest, that is "supposedly" reflective and representative of the Constituted Aspirations of the People of Virginia and the work of reform or the Reform Push, emerges saying, yes, but there are a couple of things we must clear and confront. Because if Virginia's Justice Infrastructure and the Imprisonment scheme speak due to and under the authority of the People, then we have to have the correct definition of the People, which will then lead us to the honesty of the "mission" of the imprisonment scheme, that is in accord with the Constituted Aspirations of the People. Now this is the crux. What I mean is this: As I've described Reform is exposing Speech, or the exposé of history and origin. Which Social Contract interacts with on the terms of "practical legitimacy", or the requisite attention to its intention, purpose and function. Now here is where we meet the mindless context of Virginia's prison reform is a joke anonymous comment, because if "anonymous" is concerned with the work of prison reform, they would find that in Virginia's Governor Abigail Spanberger do we have the historic first of the "Public" acknowledgement for unambiguous prison reform, SO seize it.

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .

YES WE HAVE OUR INDIVIDUAL VIRGINIA IMPRISONMENT SCHEME EXPERIENCES, BUT GOVERNOR ABIGAIL SPANBERGER WITH HER DESCRIPTIVE OF THE VIRGINIA PRISONER AS "LIVING" IS CREATING SPACE FOR THE REALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY-FUNCTION OF GOVERNANCE By William Thorpe

What we as Virginia Prisoner's expect of and from those who speak for us, is Firstly the recognition, understanding and grasp of when Political-catalytic space is being created and most importantly, secondly how to then occupy it with the necessary realizing abilities of what it means to reform Virginia's imprisonment scheme by holding the Virginia Prison Official accountable. Every time a non-imprisoned Virginian or person has complained to a Virginia Government element viz the prison official about an experience a Virginia prisoner has been subjected to within the imprisonment scheme, it is an effort and endeavor of reform and a realization of the accountability-function, but and this will sound counterintuitive, but the infrastructure of the imprisonment scheme welcomes it .Because, it doesn't compel it to cease and desist in the offensive behavior, but rather it treats the circumstance of the complaint as a singular and isolated occurrence an insane affirmation of the systems acceptability and not as its inherently alienated and destructive comprehensive character. This isn't unique to imprisonment, but it is a primary and fundamental nature of the super infrastructure of Society or the Social Contract. Where the entire energy of existence of the Social Contract is spent and expended in distracting attention from the fact that the insufferable circumstances of everyday life are not isolated happenstances but inexorable and inevitable consequences and results of its structure and terms of relations and if the imprisonment scheme is a primary component, then it goes to say that, within the imprisonment scheme we will encounter exponential expenditure of distorting energy. What this then means is, the work of subordinating the Virginia Prison Official to the will of the People under the accountability-function dialectic of governance, is primarily that of showing and establishing that the Prison Official's professional behavior of impunity, is not that "dumbing down" narrative of the "bad apple", but is the system behaving as it is intended to. None of this is insight, because too many damn People have died stressing this simple fact. So it isn't that as a People we are historically oblivious and ignorant, to this basic political-economy machination. But as our ancients observed, that due to that ever present Social Contract dialectic and its distorting requirement, which in the absence of an analysis based organized and structured critique. What then happens is, in our individual personification as socio-persons, experiencing, existence as a peered through communal aperture, we begin to grasp that the accepted " life" happenstances are not happenstances after all but systemic outcomes, which only exist because our disclaimers are derided as illegitimate and evidence of moral failings. In other words we are not socio-persons enough that narratives of our existence compel attention. This brings me to Governor Spanberger's recent acknowledgement that and I paraphrase fellow Virginians are living imprisoned in Virginia prisons. As I have noted in earlier works her descriptive, "living", accomplishes the thesis of holding the Virginia Prison official accountable. On two accounts, firstly considering the Virginia Prison official is accountable to her as Executive of the Commonwealth, she cannot then support, endorse and defend the practices of dehumanizing the Virginia prisoner. Secondly and most important the necessary political space now exist for practical Prison reform.

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .

WHEN A VIRGINIA PRISONER IS SUBJECTED TO AN INFRACTION, THE PROCEDURE IS CHARACTERIZED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, DO YOU REALIZE THE LIFE AND DEATH OF IT? By William Thorpe

Pictures are taken from the internet and are used for illustrative purposes only

So my opposition to the infamous HB 1030 Parole yoke, codified at Virginia Code 53.1-151.1, is well documented in a number of my works. I welcome disagreements and critique from any vantage of any position. Even when the critique is purely simplistic and an exhibition of idealistic indulgence. Because for one if idealistic indulgences weren't, pervasively a social currency, we all would be winged creatures gloriously eternally chanting, instead of profanely revealing our "unqualified interests" and giving them the honest maturity expected of the necessary and inexorable critique of the Social Contract Humanness realizational function. Despite the fact that ,the business of human existence demands and compels gradient analysis, from self-introspection to political-economy examination, it is never welcome belying its unforgiving and merciless necessity and nothing more compels analysis as the work of reforming Virginia's imprisonment scheme. When we speak of Contradictions and Antagonisms, there isn't a vector more rife with both thesis than as it concerns this work, Virginia's imprisonment scheme and when we don't simply acknowledge such as not being the exception but the rule, then the Virginia People in their rank and file premising its Constituted Aspirations, from the Imprisoned Virginian, to Family, Ally, Friends and most importantly those harmed by the imprisoned are comprehensively ill-equipped to pursue the inevitable Reform irrespective of impulse. Whether or not one is cognizant, with the appreciative presence of mind, that Law is being upheld by Virginia's imprisonment scheme or exists in its apathy, the reality is the conditionality of the presumptuousness are nonetheless impactful. Because the presence of impunity and its above-the-lawism, isn't simply isolated to for example a Virginia Prison Official breaking the law in the treatment of an imprisoned Virginian in solitary confinement in any number of Virginia's Koncentration Kamps. But it seeps out, it leaks out, it pervades and permeates Virginia Society via any number of portals that I'll leave to the educated imagination of the reader and it afflicts and affects that basic basis of social interaction, which is the fundamental recognition of the Virginia socio-person. This formulation is what made Governor Abigail Spanberger's recent descriptive of the imprisoned Virginian as "living" so instructive, because in one swoop she critiqued that philosophical dehumanization of the Virginia prisoner practiced by the Virginia prison official, thereby creating that legitimizing space for the anti-dehumanization critique to mature in. But that perspective is not the focus of this current work. This work deals with how the reduction of what are law formulations are summarily transformed into its management as an Administrative Process thereby transforming the lawful prisoner into an unlawful dehumanization. Look at it like this: ask yourself, now why would a Social Contract, transform the HUMAN RIGHTS of the socio-person into CIVIL RIGHTS, well that's the same exact circumstance with the Prisoner. A prisoner is a complete and total creation of law, as such the prisoner as socio-person is the most lawful. But the Prison Official alters the lawfulness of the Prisoner into an extra-judicial entity subject to the ad hoc whimsies of ADMINISTRATION. Under lawfulness and law the Prisoner is beneficiary of actual Process with all its attendant technicalities, penalties and prejudices. Under Administration the prisoner is subject to arbitrary applications and its corruption 

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .

Y William

NORTH CAROLINA PRISON OFFICIALS SHACKLED A FEMALE PRISONER WHO WAS HAVING A BABY, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, WHICH VIRGINIA IS UNDER ITS JURISDICTION---SAID NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND WE COMMEND THEM By William Thorpe

When People in whose authority Systems viz LAW exist and function do the right thing we acknowledge, recognize and even commend them and we have one of those moments in the case: EDWARDS v. WITHERSPOON 2026 U.S APP. LEXIS 27847.Our work is on Virginia's imprisonment scheme, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has authority over to what extent its circumstances are relatively lawful. The imprisonment scheme of the State of North Carolina, is also under 4th Circuit jurisdiction, so situations in North Carolina are on legal equal footing as Virginia. But besides the jurisdictional relevance, the fact that the professional determinations of a prison official can be expressed in shackling a pregnant Prisoner in labor, underscores, the Speech of our Virginia work. Secondly the work of the Judges in the EDWARDS case, specifically Judges DIAZ, GREGORY and BENJAMIN (who wrote the Opinion) as it stands should be recognized, for providing analysis that is accessible to us all. I BEGIN: The EDWARDS case, not only is it analytically revelatory, but it also indicts. For starters, the case is about a pregnant prisoner having a baby, it also deals with Opioid use and flabbergasting prison bureaucracy as embodied in the Administration of Dehumanization, evidenced in the summary treatment of a female human in labor. It also indicts the hypocrisy of certain noisy Establishment Institutions, of their typical presence and intrusions into all sorts of Social issues by their absence, as nothing more than crass opportunity. We don't find the various Church and "faith" based Groups and Organizations exploiting the Amicus Curiae system with their dictatorial suppositions, which is odd. Because one would think, supporting a Woman who happens to be imprisoned and is being subjected to State practiced dehumanization, its opposition qualifies for Evangelical critique and opprobrium. Yet the critique is not so surprisingly absent. I will let the suspect Organizations speak for themselves without prompt from our work. What I will however say is, certain things are apparent. The suspect Organizations who typically are present in the Amici environment, having everything to say on all sorts of irrelevances, besides pathetic hypocrisy, clearly haven't resolved the honesty of practice of certain of their unambiguous basic tenets and quite frankly that isn't a sin, that's essentially the human condition, the honesty of resolving contradictions. Another thing the EDWARDS case also does, is allow certain "thought" to, firstly expose their existence, then stutter their way into that proverbial, what, "the cat got your tongue?". Because it confronts the sophistry presented in works as: REVISITING THE CRITIQUE OF THOSE WHO UPHELD THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT IN THE 1840's AND 50's--58 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 290 by PETER KARSTEN. Because if we are to accept the defense of Qualified Immunity, which is nothing more than a perpetual end run, which is practically what PETER KARSTEN ask of us in his REVISITING... THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT work, which we also encounter in the DISSENT in LEWIS v. CARABALLO 98 F.4th 521, where a 15 year old boy, CAMERON LEWIS was getting his brain bashed in by a Maryland State Trooper and the Maryland Officer raised as defense, that there wasn't any law that said an Officer cannot bash a human being's brain in under the logic of the arrest process. Now PETER KARSTEN in his FUGITIVE SLAVE work didn't couch, it in QUALIFIED IMMUNITY terms yet it is.

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .