IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 22-cv-193
JUVENAL OVIDIO RICARDO PALMERA PINEDA a/k/a SIMON TRINIDAD,
MERRICK B. GARLAND, attorney general of the United States in his official capacity; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
JOHN DOES 1-21, in their official capacities.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiff Juvenal Ovidio Ricardo Palmera Pineda, henceforth referred to as Simón Trinidad, by and through his attorney Kenneth Mark Burton, respectfully submits this Complaint alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1. Plaintiff Simón Trinidad (Trinidad) is a prisoner incarcerated in USP Florence ADMAX, popularly known as “Supermax”, where he serves a sentence under Special Administrative Measure (SAMs) that require that he be held incommunicado and not granted access to communication with the outside world.
2. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested that the Defendants allow him contact with a Colombian attorney to advise him on important outstanding court cases related to the Colombian Peace Agreement signed between the Government of Colombia and the Fuerzas Armadas
Revoluciónarias de Colombia (FARC) in 2016.
3. The Plaintiff has some 90 cases that are, or will be, under the jurisdiction of the special court created to resolve allegations of war crimes that arose out of Colombia’s civil war. This court’s purpose is to allow victims of the civil war, and Colombian society, to learn the truth about what occurred in the war with the goal of promoting reconciliation and help prevent a repetition of the armed conflict in the future. This Court is called the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP) and in English, the Special Peace Jurisdiction.
4. On several occasions, the Plaintiff has requested access to a Colombian attorney to assist him in his cases before the JEP. His requests for contact with a Colombian Attorney have been denied by the Plaintiffs.
5. Plaintiff Trinidad needs access to a Colombian attorney with whom he can consult to prepare his responses to the JEP. The Plaintiff’s interventions in the JEP can be oral or in writing.
6. Plaintiff Trinidad suffered harm and continues to suffer harm by the Defendant’s denial of access to an attorney. The Defendant’s denial of access to a Colombian attorney violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
7. Simón Trinidad requests that the Court grant him declaratory and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to allow him access to a Colombian Attorney.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
9. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) because there is an actual controversy within this Court’s jurisdiction regarding whether Defendants violated Mr. Simon Trinidad’s constitutional rights.
10. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All of the events alleged herein, occurred within the State of Colorado at the time of the events giving rise to this Complaint.
11. Plaintiff Simón Trinidad is a prisoner in the custody of Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and has been incarcerated in USP Florence ADMAX since August 2008.
12. Defendant Merrick B. Garland is the Attorney General of the United States. Attorney General Garland has decision making authority regarding the placement, transfer, and treatment of prisoners within BOP, as well as the power to direct the imposition, renewal, modification, and cessation of SAMs affecting prisoners within the custody of the BOP pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 501.3. Plaintiff Garland is sued in his official capacity.
13. Defendant BOP is an agency of the United States that is responsible for the administration of federal prisons, including U.S.P. Florence ADMAX. The BOP maintains physical custody of Mr. Trinidad.
14. Defendants John Does 1 through 20 (“John Does”) are one or more individuals, agencies, office, or task forces that, upon information and belief, are associated with the United States Department of Justice, federal law-enforcement agencies, or agencies of the United States Intelligence agencies and that have authority and influence over the renewal and implementation of SAMs pursuant to C.F.R. § 501.3. They are sued in their official capacities.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.
A. Plaintiff Trinidad’s Entry into the FARC.
15. Simón Trinidad, a native of Colombia, was trained as an economist in universities in Bogotá Colombia. Upon graduation, Plaintiff Trinidad moved to his family’s home city of Valledupar, Department of Cesar, Colombia.
16. In Valledupar, the Plaintiff worked as a banker and a university professor. He helped found the Universidad Libre de César. Plaintiff Trinidad taught economics at this new university and was active in the life of this institution.
17. In 1982, the Colombian government, under President Belesario Betancur, entered into a peace process with the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). This peace process lasted until 1986 and ended without a peace agreement.
18. A political party, the Unión Patriótica (UP), was founded in 1984, and was a product of the peace process whose goal was to give a voice to disaffected Colombians and encourage a peaceful resolution of the Colombian armed conflict. This armed conflict, that began in 1964, affected the entire country. The conflict was between the Colombian government and various armed groups, including the FARC.
19. In 1984, Mr. Trinidad joined the UP and began attending meetings, publicly advocating for the UP’s platform. Plaintiff Trinidad campaigned for peace in his home state of César with the UP and became a well-known advocate for various social and political issues.
20. In 1986, a campaign of terror began against the UP its members and leaders. Many of the UP’s members and leaders, including two presidential candidates, were assassinated. This terror campaign became known as the genocide against the Unión Patriótica and it is estimated that between 4,000 to 6,000 members of this organization were assassinated by right wing death squads.
21. Several friends and colleagues of the Plaintiff, who were members of the UP, were assassinated in his home province of César during this period.
22. Plaintiff Trinidad also received death threats due to his membership in the UP. In 1987, Plaintiff Trinidad learned that his name was on a list of members of the UP to be assassinated. Plaintiff Trinidad believed that he had two options: to go into exile, or to live clandestinely in Colombia.
23. The Plaintiff chose the latter option and in 1987, joined the FARC and fled to the Colombian mountains.
B. Plaintiff Trinidad in the FARC.
24. In the FARC Plaintiff Trinidad was known as a teacher of literacy, history, philosophy, among other subjects, to members of the FARC.
25. The FARC again entered peace negotiations with the Colombian government in San Vicente del Caguán Colombia between 1999 and 2002.
26. Due to Plaintiff Trinidad’s passion for peace and his academic preparation, he was asked to participate as a spokesperson for the FARC in these talks. First, he participated as a member of the thematic table, which oversaw the diffusion of information about the peace talks to the Colombian public and the international press. Due to his abilities, Plaintiff Trinidad was then asked to serve on the main negotiating table.
27. Plaintiff Trinidad, as a negotiator, developed a high profile internationally because of his eloquence in public speaking, his interactions with diplomatic missions from various countries, and his exposure in the Colombian and international press.
28. The San Vicente del Caguán talks failed in 2002; no agreement was reached, and the civil conflict continued in Colombia.
C. The Capture and Extradition of Plaintiff Trinidad
29. Even though the peace talks failed, Plaintiff Trinidad continued to engage in activities related to promoting peace with the Colombian government.
30. In December 2003, Plaintiff went to Ecuador looking for UN official Mr. James Lemoyne, with a proposal for a prisoner of war exchange with the Colombian Government. The hope was that the proposed prisoner exchange would help restart peace talks.
31. Plaintiff Trinidad was arrested in Quito Ecuador on January 2, 2004, before he was able to speak to the UN diplomat concerning the peace proposal. Ecuador summarily deported Plaintiff Trinidad to Colombia on January 4, 2004.
32. Upon arrival in Colombia, the Colombian government asked the United States to extradite Plaintiff Trinidad even though there were no cases, nor any criminal investigations of him in the United States.
33. The United States Ambassador to Colombia, Ambassador Wood, wrote to Washington in a, now famous, cable regarding a Colombian government request to extradite the Plaintiff to the United States. The Ambassador stated: “At this time, however, Palmera [Plaintiff Trinidad] does not face criminal charges in the U.S. The Embassy is unaware of any pending investigations against this well-known narco-terrorist by U.S. law enforcement agencies.”1
34. The lack of any pre-existing investigations or criminal cases did not stop the efforts to extradite Plaintiff Trinidad to the United States. On March 2, 2004, the United Sates added
1 US embassy cable - 04BOGOTA85 January 6, 2004
the Plaintiff to a pre-existing indictment for conspiracy to import five kilograms or more and to manufacture five kilograms or more of Cocaine Intending and Knowing that the Cocaine will be Unlawfully Imported into the United States and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. 963 & 960; 18 U.S.C. 2 in case 02-CR-0112 in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. The case basically alleged that, while Plaintiff Trinidad was involved in peace negotiations in San Vincente del Caguán, he conspired to export cocaine to the United States.
35. Plaintiff Trinidad was then indicted for Conspiracy to Take Hostages (18U.S.C 1023(a)), three counts of hostage taking (18 U.S.C. 1023(a)), Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done (18 U.S.C. 2)), and Material Support of Terrorism (18 U.S.C. 2339A) on May 13, 2004 in case 04-cr-232 in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. This case was based on the capture of three US military contractors whose plane crashed and were captured by the FARC in the Colombian countryside. The military contractor’s jobs involved filming the FARC from the air and sending their video footage to the US military.
36. The Plaintiff was indicted in 04-cr-232, although he took no part in the capture of these three military contractors, he didn’t have any contact with, or control over the three prisoners, nor did he participate in their incarceration.
37. Plaintiff Trinidad was extradited to the United States and arrived in Washington DC on December 31, 2004.
38. The Plaintiff went to trial twice in the drug case 02-cr-0112. The first trial began on August 20, 2007, and a mistrial was declared on October 4, 2007, as the jury was unable to unanimously reach a verdict. The second trial started on March 3, 2008, and another mistrial was declared on April 21, 2008, since the jury, once again, could not unanimously reach a verdict in the case. The government moved to dismiss the drug case on May 6, 2008, and its motion was granted on May 21, 2008.
39. The hostage taking case also went to trial twice. The first trial started on October 3, 2006, and a mistrial was declared on November 21, 2006, as the jurors could not unanimously decide on a verdict. The second trial began on May 30, 2007, and finished on July 31, 2007. The jury were only able to unanimously agree, after extremely long and intense deliberations where the jurors were deadlocked at one point and were admonished to continue deliberating, that Plaintiff Trinidad was guilty of count 1, Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking (18 U.S.C. § 1203(a)).
40. After 4 long trials in two different cases, the United States was only able to convict Plaintiff Trinidad of one count in his two cases.
41. Plaintiff Trinidad was sentenced to 60 years in prison on January 28, 2008.
D. Conditions of Confinement and Special Administrative Measures (SAM)
42. Upon his arrival in the United States on December 31, 2004, Simón Trinidad was incarcerated in general population in the Washington DC Jail. On January 25, 2005, the government, though its Attorney General, imposed Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) (C.F.R. § 501.3). on Plaintiff Trinidad. Plaintiff Trinidad’s SAMs ordered that he have no contact with the outside world except for his legal team from the Federal Defenders, and a very few immediate family members. Contact with the rest of humanity was prohibited.
43. The SAMs imposed on Plaintiff meant that he was incarcerated in isolation for 23 hours a day. In Washington DC, he was incarcerated in an observation cell where the lights were on 24 hours a day and he was allowed no contact with the outside world.
44. This SAMs have been renewed annually since 2005.
45. After his sentence was imposed, Plaintiff Trinidad was sent to U.S.P. Florence ADMAX in Florence, Colorado on August 8, 2008. U.S.P. Florence ADMAX is the highest security prison in the United States and is popularly known as “Supermax.”
46. In Supermax, Plaintiff Trinidad is housed in the H-Unit which is a unit designed to house prisoners who are subject to SAMs.
47. Plaintiff Trinidad is housed in a cell that measures 75.5 square feet and contains a bed, table, toilet, and a television.
48. Plaintiff Trinidad was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day except being let out a few hours a week for exercise that occurred out of doors in a type of human cage.
49. Currently, Plaintiff Trinidad has no ability to communicate with the outside world, just as in Washington DC. He is not allowed to send or receive communications except with his Department of Justice approved attorneys and a few close family members, and is cut off from the rest of humanity.
50. On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff Trinidad was admitted to the step-down program at U.S.P. Florence ADMAX. In this program, the Plaintiff has limited contact with 3 other prisoners but is subject to the SAMs and is still cut off from contact with the outside world.
E. PLAINTIFF TRINIDAD AND THE PEACE TALKS IN HAVANA, CUBA (2012-2016).
51. In September 2012 the Colombian Government and the FARC- began peace talks in Oslo, Norway, to negotiate an end to the armed conflict in Colombia that has raged since 1964. Norway and Cuba acted as guarantor countries, guaranteeing the resources and diplomatic support to maintain this peace process. Chile and Venezuela were accompanying countries that also supported the talks. After the initial public meeting in Oslo, the peace talks were transferred to Havana, Cuba where they remained until the end of the process.
52. The United States also took a keen interest in the peace process. President Obama sent Bernard W. Aronson as his special envoy to the Colombian Peace Talks. Mr. Aronson spent much time traveling between Havana, Cuba, and Washington DC giving the United States’ positions to the parties in the peace talks and reporting back to the Obama Administration on the progress of the talks.
53. The Colombian government recognized the importance of including Plaintiff Trinidad in the Peace Process. The Colombian government requested that the Obama Administration allow delegations to visit Plaintiff Trinidad and to speak to him about the peace process. The Obama administration agreed and allowed delegations that included a Colombian Senator and a Colombian lawyer, among other visitors.
54. Diego Alejandro Martinez Castillo (Martinez), a Colombian attorney, visited the Plaintiff three times in U.S.P. Florence ADMAX.
55. On September 26, 2016, the FARC and the Colombian government signed a peace agreement ending a nearly fifty-year-old armed conflict. The agreement went into effect on November 24, 2016.
56. Importantly, the agreement called for an end to the armed conflict and the FARC, agreed to give up using arms for political change. The FARC dissolved, and its members formed a new legal party dedicated to peaceful methods of political activity. This new, legal. political party is today called Comunes.
57. One aspect of the peace agreement that is of particular relevance to this case, was the creation of a court to deal with outstanding allegations of alleged crimes that occurred in the scope of the armed conflict. This court is the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), and, in English it is called the Special Peace Jurisdiction.
58. The purpose of the JEP is to litigate allegations of crimes that arose during the war so that victims can be given restitution, and Colombia can learn about the war and its effects on the country. The goal of this court is that Colombian society can learn from the past and avoid a repetition of the armed conflict.
59. “The Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) is the justice component of the Comprehensive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition, created by the Peace Agreement between the National Government and the FARC-EP. The SJP has the function of administering transitional justice and hearing crimes committed in the framework of the armed conflict that were committed before December 1, 2016.”2
60. In October 2017, Plaintiff Trinidad was visited by a delegation that included two Colombian Diplomats, a Colombian Senator, and the Colombian attorney Mr. Martinez. The purpose of the visit was to see if the Plaintiff would affirm his commitment to the peace process. 3
61. After this meeting, Plaintiff Trinidad signed a document called Acta de Compromiso asking that he be admitted to the Peace Process, promising to foreswear the use arms for political aims and to advocate for political change using peaceful methods. Additionally. Plaintiff affirmed that he would follow all the other norms of the peace agreement that includes testifying truthfully in future proceedings in the JEP. A copy of the Acta de Compromiso with an English translation is attached as an exhibit.
62. It is estimated that Plaintiff Trinidad has over 90 cases that either are, or will shortly be, before the JEP.
2 https://www.jep.gov.co/JEP/Paginas/Jurisdiccion-Especial-para-la-Paz.aspx (translated by counsel)
F. Plaintiff Trinidad’s Access to Counsel
63. One of the principal purposes of SAMS is to protect persons where contact with the subject of the SAMs can create a danger of death or serious bodily injury to another:
Upon direction of the Attorney General, the Director, Bureau of Prisons, may authorize the Warden to implement special administrative measures that are reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury. These procedures may be implemented upon written notification to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, by the Attorney General or, at the Attorney General's direction, by the head of a federal law enforcement agency, or the head of a member agency of the United States intelligence community, that there is a substantial risk that a prisoner's communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons, or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons. These special administrative measures ordinarily may include housing the inmate in administrative detention and/or limiting certain privileges, including, but not limited to, correspondence, visiting, interviews with representatives of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of acts of violence or terrorism. The authority of the Director under this paragraph may not be delegated below the level of Acting Director. 28 C.F.R. § 501.3(a).
64. Plaintiff Trinidad had three meetings with Mr. Martinez from 2015 to 2017 in USP Florence ADMAX. These meetings did not create a danger of death or bodily injury to any person.
65. Duet to the fact that Mr. Trinidad now has multiple cases in the JEP, he requested access to Colombian attorneys on several occasions to assist him to prepare legal defenses to his cases. Defenses in the JEP can be presented via testimony, or in writing.
66. Mr. Trinidad asked for a meeting with the Colombian lawyer Diego Martinez so he could receive the effective assistance of counsel in his JEP proceedings in April 2019.
67. This request was denied and an attorney for the US Department of Justice wrote counsel for Mr. Trinidad memorializing the denial of the meeting with the Plaintiff’s Colombian lawyer.
The letter from Mr. Ian Guy, attorney for BOP, is attached as an exhibit.
68. The denial of Mr. Trinidad’s meeting with Mr. Martinez was not reasonably related to any legitimate penological objectives.
69. The proposed meeting between the Plaintiff and Mr. Martinez did not present a danger of harm to any person.
70. In July of this year, Plaintiff asked for a meeting with Colombian attorney Gustavo Enrique Gallardo Mora (Gallardo). Gallardo is an attorney who represents Plaintiff Trinidad in the JEP. The documents Attorney Gallardo filed with the JEP to represent Plaintiff Trinidad are attached as an exhibit.
71. Plaintiff has been informed in the last two months by an official of USP Florence ADMAX that his request for a visit with lawyer Gallardo was denied. The denial of contact with Gallardo was not reasonably related to any legitimate penological objectives.
72. This communication restriction, which is contained in Plaintiff Trinidad SAMs, and implemented by BOP, is an unconstitutional deprivation of his First – Amendment rights to free speech and association.
73. Communication with Attorney Gallardo, just as with Attorney Martinez, does not represent any threat or danger to any other person. See C.F.R. § 501.3(a).
74. The Biden Administration recognized the great strides towards peace that the parties in Colombia have accomplished and removed the FARC as an organization and Plaintiff Trinidad as an individual from the Specially Designated National List (SDNL) that is maintained by the US Department of the Treasury on December 1, 2021.4 Plaintiff Trinidad’s former organization, the FARC, was designated a terrorist organization but was removed from the SDNL. Plaintiff Trinidad was on the SDNL as a drug kingpin (even though two juries did not convict the Plaintiff of any drug offense) and was also removed from this list by the Biden Administration.
75. It is apparent that the Biden Administration sees the progress towards peace that the FARC, and its members have taken as positive and, in the eyes of the US government, the FARC is no longer perceived as a danger.
76. An US State Department official stated:
“The peace process and the signing of the peace accord five years ago is something that was a seminal turning point in some ways in the long-running Colombia conflict,” State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters. “It’s something we’ve commended, it is something that we have sought at every step of the way to preserve. ” The peace accord ended five decades of conflict with the FARC, and it set Colombia on a path to a just and lasting peace,” Price added. “And so we remain fully committed to working with our Colombian partners on the implementation of the peace accord.”5
77. Plaintiff Trinidad’s cases in the JEP are part and parcel of this peace process, a process that the US government wants to support.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the First Amendment – Denial of Free Speech (against all Defendants)
78. Plaintiff Trinidad incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
79. Plaintiff Trinidad brings this claim against all Defendants.
80. In subjecting Plaintiff Trinidad to the SAMs and unreasonably and excessively restricting his access to communication and visits with his Colombian lawyer Gallardo, Defendants, without a legitimate penological purpose, and acting under the color of law and their authority as federal officers, are intentionally or recklessly interfering with Plaintiff’s right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
81. Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Plaintiff Trinidad has the right to communicate with other persons, including the right to retain, communicate with, and consult an attorney.
82. By imposing, renewing, and implementing the SAMs against Plaintiff Trinidad, Defendants have prohibited, and are continuing to prohibit, Plaintiff from communicating with many people including with the Colombian lawyer of his choice Mr. Gallardo.
83. Due to the SAMs, Defendants are censoring and restricting Plaintiff’s outgoing correspondence, communications, and visits, and he is prohibited from communicating with his Colombian lawyer, Mr. Gallardo.
84. Defendants are restricting and censoring Plaintiff’s correspondence and communication to a degree greater than is necessary for the protection of government’s interests in security, order, and rehabilitation.
85. Defendants are restricting and censoring Plaintiff’s communication to a degree greater than is reasonably necessary to protect persons from the risks of acts of violence or terrorism.
86. Plaintiff is entitled to the restoration of his First Amendment right to communicate with his Colombian lawyer Gallardo, except to the extent Defendants can demonstrate that restrictions upon that right are reasonably necessary to further a legitimate penological interest.
87. Plaintiff Trinidad has no adequate alternative other than communicating with his Colombian lawyer Gallardo to prepare his defenses in his cases in the JEP.
88. Plaintiff Trinidad has no adequate remedy at law or other effective means of enforcing his right to free speech under the First Amendment other than by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court.
89. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Trinidad has suffered and will continue to suffer harm.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the First Amendment – Denial of Free Association
(against all Defendants)
90. Plaintiff Trinidad incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
91. Plaintiff Trinidad brings this claim against all Defendants.
92. In subjecting Plaintiff Trinidad to the SAMs and unreasonably and excessively restricting his access to visits and phone calls with his Colombian lawyer, Defendants, without a legitimate penological purpose, and acting under the color of law and their authority as federal officers, are intentionally or recklessly interfering with Plaintiff’s right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
93. Due to the SAMs, Defendants are censoring and restricting Plaintiff’s outgoing correspondence, communications, and not allowing visits, and he is prohibited from communicating and associating with his Colombian lawyer, Mr. Gallardo.
94. Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Plaintiff Trinidad has the right to communicate with other persons, including the right to retain, communicate with, consult, and associate with an attorney.
95. Defendants are restricting and censoring Plaintiff’s right to associate to a degree greater than is necessary for the protection of government’s interests in security, order, and rehabilitation.
96. Plaintiff is entitled to the restoration of his First Amendment right to associate with his Colombian lawyer Gallardo, except to the extent Defendants can demonstrate that restrictions upon that right are reasonably necessary to further a legitimate penological interest.
97. Plaintiff Trinidad has no adequate remedy at law or other effective means of enforcing his First Amendment right to free association other than by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court.
98. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Trinidad has suffered and will continue to suffer harm.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Trinidad respectively requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants, and grant him the following relief:
a) A declaration that the acts and omissions described herein are in violation of Plaintiff’s right to Free Speech under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b) A declaration that the acts and omissions described herein are in violation of Plaintiff’s right to Free Association under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c) A permanent injunction ordering Defendant Garland to allow communication and visits between his Colombian lawyer Gallardo and Plaintiff Trinidad and that he remove any provision in the SAMs that prohibits such, and prohibiting Defendant Garland or future Attorneys General from re-imposing SAMs on the Plaintiff that do not allow a visit from a Colombian lawyer;
d) Attorney’s fees and the costs associated with this action as allowed by law; and
e) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed by law.
Dated this 24th day of January 2022 Respectfully submitted,
s/ Kenneth Mark Burton
Kenneth Mark Burton ATTORNEY AT LAW
The Law Office of Mark Burton, PC 1175 Osage Street, Suite 210
Denver, CO 80204