A December 13, 2006 memo from then-Director Scott Kernan declared a
systemwide
ban on all publications from the Maoist Internationalist Movement.
The memo misquoted and took out of context statements by MIM to justify
the ban. Many comrades soon jumped into action to defend the First
Amendment rights of California prisoners and their outside supporters.
One comrade took this battle further than anyone else, leading to over 2
years of legal battles that ended in April, 2009.
One administrator claimed there were three banned publishers in
California Department of Corrections (CDCR): MIM, Penthouse and Playboy.
While MIM had received this high honor of a complete ban, others were
facing severe censorship by CDCR as well. In April 2007, Prison Legal
News (PLN) settled their suit against CDCR’s illegal censorship. The
settlement was very strategic on the behalf of the PLN legal team in
that it included reforms to CDCR mail policy that affected all of us
that had been having problems.
As many of our readers probably know, Prison Legal News was founded and
is led by jailhouse lawyers. Their consistent work has won them the
ability to recruit street lawyers to their battles. Without the
leadership of prisoners and former prisoners, defenders of prisoners’
rights in the courtroom are few and far between. Yet, litigating from
behind the walls is no easy task, as our California comrade can attest:
“The sole reason for my non-opposal of defendants summary judgment is
quite simply that I was unable to litigate the case from my current
residence here in the hole. As I stated to you before I was not able to
obtain the required legal materials needed to litigate, materials such
as a basic copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the
sufficient or suitable case law required, or even sufficient copies, and
typing paper.
“As I am in Ad-Seg, most of the required materials stated above are not
in this building’s possession, or even on the same yard. We must write
to B-yard law library for requested legal texts. This is something no
one bothered to inform me of ‘til just a few weeks ago. Furthermore, the
whole process of requesting materials is usually hit or miss in the
sense that sometimes we receive our materials, sometimes we don’t. Since
I’m in the hole, I had to request photocopies of the FRCP. However, due
to ’copyright concerns’ I did not get it.”
In addition to being denied needed legal materials, this comrade was
denied an appeal for a lawyer to be appointed to their case. This was
particularly relevant in this case where s/he was being denied access to
the materials in question because they were deemed a risk to security.
For a year and a half following PLN’s victory, supporters of MIM
Distributors argued that the ban on MIM mail was not in compliance with
the settlement. Finally, in October 2008 the CDCR released their new
“Centralized List of Disapproved Publications,” a product of the
settlement. MIM Distributors is not on this list, and is therefore no
longer legally banned in California. It is against CDCR policy for
individual prisons to institute bans that are not on this centralized
list.
While the final date for additions to the Centralized List was May 1
(and it is updated annually), we have not seen the new list for 2009.
Experience seems to indicate that we are still not on it, since those
who continue to ban our mail cite outdated documents. Prisons that
continue to return mail from MIM(Prisons) unopened are High Desert and
the supermax prison, Pelican Bay. Blanket bans seem to require more
stringent review by the courts. Therefore, it may be more strategic for
the state to avoid blanket bans in the future, thus making lawsuits like
the California prisoner’s more difficult to carry out.
The good news is most prisons in California no longer have a blanket ban
on MIM (those that do are in violation of court orders). This may have
more to do with incompetence of the CDCR staff than a strategic
approach. But it also means that the censors must now justify their
censorship based on the California Code of Regulations, and appeals
cannot be rejected out of hand.
For a while, the prisoner who filed suit was the only persyn in h prison
who was able to receive Under Lock & Key. We assumed this
was to undermine h censorship claims. Yet, after the ban on MIM was
officially canceled in October, all of a sudden ULK was also
censored to this comrade. When one of our legal supporters wrote to
inquire as to why, the Warden cited the overturned ban on MIM. This was
as late as March 2009, and the same thing happened in other California
prisons. It was not until 6 months after the new list was released that
prison administrators acknowledged that MIM Distributors was no longer
banned. We have been assured that proper training of mailroom staff has
been conducted in a number of California prisons regarding the new
banned list. Still, this alleged “incompetence” has led to over 2 years
of no contact with many prisoners across California, and added up to
uncounted costs in lost and returned mail and printed materials.
Meanwhile, MIM Theory 8: Anarchist Ideal & Communist
Revolution was deemed such a threat that the court would not allow
the plaintiff to view the magazine alone in h cell to prepare h case.
The CDCR legal team even attempted to seal MIM literature from the
public because it allegedly posed such a threat to security. In their
motion to have the documents sealed, the CDCR also refers to MIM’s
“anonymity” as a threat to security. It is not clear to us how
identities of those working with MIM are relevant to the security of
prisons run by CDCR, but we do see anonymity as justified given the
history of harassment and intimidation by CDCR’s Investigation Unit and
the CCPOA of citizens outside of prison. MIM(Prisons) takes these
threats very seriously.
On June 29, 2009, the US District Court issued a summary judgment
dismissing the claims against CDCR. In the summary judgment the court
recognizes our comrade’s exposure of the CDCR for misquoting MIM
Theory 8, using ellipses as Scott Kernan did in the 2006 memo.
Still, the court deferred to the biased judgments of the prison
officials, citing Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132
(2003).
The comrade responded by writing,
“I am extremely disheartened by the aforementioned facts. Disheartened,
not defeated, yet I see no positive outcome to the civil matter.”
S/he goes on to state,
“Once again I am extremely and hopefully apologetic. It was not my
intention to have done all this work for the past 3 years just to have
it all come to a crashing halt in the period of three months. I have let
not just myself and the movement down, but the people as well.
“Not all is bad though. This was certainly a learning experience and I
definitely learned a lot for a 7th grade drop-out. I have been inspired
to take a paralegal course, after which I will be of better use to MIM
and the people.”
For this comrade in California, it is certainly natural to feel
disheartened, and it is good to hear that you are not defeated. In the
imperialist countries, the task of the revolutionary movement is to
carry out long legal battles. Mao said this in 1975, and it is still
true today. This means that many of us will have to spend long hours
learning and applying bourgeois law, while recognizing that the law has
class character and is not designed to serve the oppressed. In addition,
“legal work” does not just mean in the court room. An important aspect
for keeping our work focused and sane is to carry it out as part of a
larger movement. This comrade didn’t have a victory in court, but h
efforts were simultaneous to petitioning of the CDCR, to public
education around censorship, to other prisoners filing appeals, and to
PLN’s own lawsuit. We will face many failures along the way, but these
failures become easy to accept when we study and understand the
weaknesses of imperialism as a system, and see our strategic role in
contributing to ending all systems of oppression.
We commend this comrade’s drive to continue legal studies. The more
effective each of us become in our work the easier it is for all of us
to succeed. Becoming more effective requires studying others’
experiences, learning from them and developing strategies as a movement.
In a more recent letter our jailhouse lawyer wrote,
“Some key points I’ve learned from all of this is that you definitely
have to be committed when engaging the oppressors and their legal
system. You always have to keep in mind that you are facing seasoned
veterans with all the tools and obstacles of the state at their beck and
call. It’s never going to be easy, just less difficult at times. Long
periods of research and study are also essential with these legal
battles long before you decide to actually bring your case into the
courtroom. You can also never let yourself be discouraged because
discouragement is key to the oppressor’s victories which in turn
establishes precedent making it that much more difficult for us to
succeed.”
Prison Legal News and the lawyers supporting their work are the
exception to the rule. Most of the time it is prisoners, sometimes with
little or no formal education, as this comrade can attest to, who must
fight these battles in a maze of complicated language and jargon, where
you are starting out at a huge disadvantage. That is why it is important
to keep in mind what we are dealing with. The u.$. state is an
imperialist state. The court is not a just and benevolent god. Mumia
introduces his new book
Jailhouse
Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A. discussing
prisoners who have gone mad after years of learning and applying the law
only to lose their just cases, or to have them thrown out before even
getting a trial. Such outcomes are to be expected for the oppressed
under imperialism and this is an important lesson to learn.
To our readers in California, it is more important than ever that you
write in to tell us what mail you are receiving from us so that we can
build on this struggle. To date, only a handful of people have
acknowledged receiving ULK 10 on Hip Hop.