Federal Prisons

As to the comrade in Ohio and MIM(Prisons)’s response on “Coffee House Revolutionaries or Real Militants?” in ULK 54 I don’t think the comrade in Ohio knows or realizes what MIM(Prisons) does or does not have in the organization’s caches or whether or not MIM is or isn’t physically or militarily preparing for the perfect time to do what that comrade is expressing in this letter. Also MIM follows Mao’s line on war strategy. MIM(Prisons) is not a street gang, or a criminal org. If you want to, and feel the time is perfect to take on the imperialist U.$. army, you’re sadly mistaken. In your commentary, I understood where you’re coming from because I am not much of a politician. I’m a soldier, and fighter as well. I, comrade in Ohio, agree with you that violence is a necessary means to achieve one’s goals in our type of struggle, and little by little, on a small scale the snowball has begun to roll. Trump is helping us push that ball forward, with his political ignorance. He’s threatening to dismantle people like us, who have outside organizations – other than MIM(Prisons) – whom we have direct third world connections to.

Now, where I am in disagreement with MIM(Prisons) is that they, or we, should not be reluctant to put a cache of weapons in bunkers or safe-houses just because of what MIM(Prisons) says “recent history” in the United $tates reveals about the murder or imprisonment of revolutionary groups that have attempted to do that. There does not have to be a set time to get weapons ready. That can be done clandestinely. I will not elaborate on that any more at this time. I will say that I do respect how MIM(Prisons) responded to the comrade in the Ohio prison. You, MIM(Prisons), stated at the end of your response that you “look forward to learning and building with this comrade and eir organization for many years to come.” The organization I’ll be working for out there are ex-military, ex-cops, and from ex-intelligence of 3rd world military groups from all over the world, and of whom they, as well as all other organizations like them, can’t be too happy about the hard line President Trump is taking.

Greetings to everyone at MIM. I am a prisoner held captive here at High Desert State Prison, in Susanville, California. I’m writing to inform the people of this new and improved form of repression tactic hidden behind the name of public safety and security. An investigative report came out in December 2015 by the Inspector General about the abuse and cover-ups by officers at this prison for 2 decades. Since then, the powers that be have started to install the video recording cameras in the prison, which is not a bad idea. Most prisons have cameras on the yard. However, these new high-tech cameras now have audio/voice recording which is new for CDCR.

They have also installed them just about any and everywhere, in the chowhall, gym, dayroom, yard, medical, law library, chapel, laundry, school/education, even in N.A. (Narcotic Anonymous) and A.A. (Alcoholic Anonymous), which begs the question, who’re they really keeping an eye on and watching? Now don’t get me wrong I’m all for holding these pigs/officers accountable for their actions. But now they’re watching and listening to our conversations in the chapel during our religious services where prisoners talk freely and enjoy open discussions on religion, race, politics, without the eyes and ears of the custody staff. N.A. and A.A. is suppose to be Anonymous where prisoners can get help and talk openly and privately with each other and the sponsor about our addiction and recovery. Now the Anonymous is out the picture when custody can see and listen when they choose to.

Medical is suppose to be between the prisoner and doctor to talk and review medical issues and problems without custody knowing your business. Visiting always had cameras but if the state choses to take out the old and put in the new, then they will be able to listen to our intimate conversations with our family, friends, wives, children etc. All in the name of what? Public safety and security? Or is this just a new and improved way for CDCR to watch & now listen to everything a prisoner does? You decide.

MIM(Prisons) responds: We’re glad to have this point brought up for consideration as most of what we’ve printed on this topic has been in favor of increased surveillance. A prime example was the campaign in North Carolina, centered around a lawsuit filed against staff for assaulting prisoners, focused on getting better camera coverage in state prisons to monitor staff. We supported this comrade in promoting eir efforts, recognizing the vulnerable situation that prisoners are in at the hands of the oppressor. Yet, for those of us outside prison, the call for more surveillance cameras gives one pause. It has come up in relation to police on the streets, but we dismissed that as not addressing the problem. The same could be said inside prisons.

The privacy struggle is one that is very relevant to us. At the same time it is mostly dominated by oppressor interests on both sides. In other words, it’s hard to campaign for civil liberties in a general way that is anti-imperialist. There are engineering solutions to privacy that can be used as tools, tactically, by revolutionaries.

There have been reports on the chilling effect of surveillance in the United $tates, showing that people are less willing to visit certain websites after the Edward Snowden leaks exposing NSA spying operations. While we disagree with the Liberals who call for a freedom of speech that allows people to promote profits over humyn needs, we also propose a program for a dictatorship of the proletariat that expands freedom of speech in many ways compared to current conditions in this country. We would ban the Orwellian “smart TVs” and other technology that is recording and collecting data on people in their homes. We would guarantee not only net neutrality, but internet access to all. Below are some planks from the MIM platform on subjects related to the First Amendment:

1. Restrictions on public postering will be eliminated except on residential buildings.

2. Large and convenient bulletin boards will be placed on every block. Boards covered over will be evidence for the need to build more.

3. There will be convenient places to leave literature along with such bulletin boards.

4. There will be no arrests in any non-residential building or premise for quiet distribution of literature. The only exception will be for high government officials meeting and who face threat of assassination–the Central Committee and government officials above a certain rank.

5. Arrests for vocal discussion will be limited to places where there is a need for meetings and orderly work. Cafeterias, outdoor sidewalks and most indoor hallways will be legally required to allow vocal discussion.

6. Meeting halls of public buildings will be made available for meetings to the public. If necessary more will be constructed.

Government bureaucrats interfering with the “free speech” of the public will be transferred to jobs where they have no such possibility.

Restrictions

1. Those advocating opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat as defined at the top of the document will go to prison or re-education camp and thereby not enjoy all full public citizenship rights.

2. Sale of pornography will be forbidden. Distribution of nude photographs paid for by the photographer or persyn who signed a consent form to be displayed in photographs will always be legal, but government authorities may require a registration for financial bookkeeping purposes. Those publicly distributing nude photos of children 12 and under will be sent to re-education camp, whether money spent was their own or not.

3. Any non-party literature or other device for public opinion building will be paid for by individual members of the public with money from salary and no outside capitalist money or stolen sources of wealth will be used to promote any opinion of the non-party public.

Stimulation

1. MIM will not order the government to censor the INTERNET except on questions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and party rule.
2. USENET groups such as talk.rape, alt.activism.death-penalty, alt.politics.greens etc. will be permitted, partly for stimulation of the minds in imperialist countries, partly to bring to the surface bourgeois thoughts in need of professional proletarian refutation and partly because there will continue to be problems in all these areas under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The need for stimulation is especially great in the depoliticized imperialist countries. Many middle-class peoples will come under the dictatorship of the proletariat without ever knowing that the world’s majority of people suffered threats to their survival on a daily basis. (1)

MIM Platform: Against prison censorship

Prison officials claim they have security reasons to act as censors. But censorship prevents prisoners from access to legal help, education, and political organization. Political and legal mail and literature are not a direct threat to the security of prisons.

In analyzing the system of social control in the United $tates, it is imperative that we follow the correct line. The position of many today is to argue that the injustice system is based on a “Prison-Industrial Complex” [which we at MIM(Prisons) reject]. A new report, “Following the Money of Mass Incarceration” by Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, provides additional evidence to back up our position.

Prisons are generally a complex web of concentration camps for oppressed semi-colonies, rather than an economically profitable industry. Indeed, there are some profits to be made (and capitalists/imperialists are good at finding their niches), but overall, the purpose of the injustice system today is population control.

As Wagner and Rabuy point out in their article: “In this first-of-its-kind report, we find that the system of mass incarceration costs the government and families of justice-involved people at least $182 billion every year.”(1) This $182 billion includes the $374 million in profits received by the private prison industry. The profits to these numerically few stakeholders hardly represent a systematic profit-generating enterprise. In fact, in the graph summing up their research, the authors had to make an exception to the cut off for significant portions of the U.$. prison budget in order to even include private prisons on it!

“This industry is dominated by two large publicly traded companies – CoreCivic (which until recently was called Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)) and The GEO Group — as well as one small private company, Management & Training Corp (MTC). We relied on the public annual reports of the two large companies, and estimated MTC’s figures using records from a decade-old public record request.”(1)

Private prison corporations have very little to gain in the prison business, which is why the vast majority (up to 95%) are still public prisons.(2) The Amerikkkan government (i.e. taxpayers) fronts the bill for the $182 billion. The few economic beneficiaries of the prison industry are commissary vendors, bail bond companies, and specialized telephone companies. As Wagner and Rabuy demonstrate, these are the multi-billion dollar industries. And they, of course, benefit, whether the prisons are private or not!

Why would the imperialist system be willing to spend almost $200 billion a year at the loss of widespread economic labor and consumers? For, as is shown: “Many people confined in jails don’t work, and four state prison systems don’t pay at all.”(1)

As Wagner points out in an article from 7 October 2015:

“Now, of course, the influence of private prisons will vary from state to state and they have in fact lobbied to keep mass incarceration going; but far more influential are political benefits that elected officials of both political parties harvested over the decades by being tough on crime as well as the billions of dollars earned by government-run prisons’ employees and private contractors and vendors.

“The beneficiaries of public prison largess love it when private prisons get all of the attention. The more the public stays focused on the owners of private prisons, the less the public is questioning what would happen if the government nationalized the private prisons and ran every facility itself: Either way, we’d still have the largest prison system in the world.”(3)

The capitalists don’t economically gain from the supposed “Prison-Industrial Complex”, but the politicians gain from the white Amerikkkan obsession with “crime”. Taking this into account, we find the truth hiding behind Wagner and Rabuy’s cryptic phrase: “To be sure, there are ideological as well as economic reasons for mass incarceration and over-criminalization.”(1)

We’ve already looked at the economic reasons – power groups like the bail bond companies and commissary vendors are obviously looking to make a profit. So what are the ideological reasons?

When we look at prison populations (whether private or public), we can see where mass incarceration gets its impetus. The vast majority of prisoners are New Afrikans, Chican@s, and peoples of the First Nations (even though euro-Amerikkkans are the majority of the U.$. population). The prison is not a revenue racket, but an instrument of social control. The motivating factor is domination, not exploitation.

If we’re following the money though, then we need look at how spending breaks down. Wagner and Rabuy present the division of costs as: the judicial and legal costs, policing expenditures, civil asset forfeiture, bail fees, commissary expenditures, telephone call charges, “public correction agencies” (like public employees and health care), construction costs, interest payments, and food and utility costs.

The authors outline their methodology for arriving at their statistics and admit that “[t]here are many items for which there are no national statistics available and no straightforward way to develop a national figure from the limited state and local data.”(1) Despite these obvious weaknesses in obtaining concrete reliable data, the overwhelming analysis stands.

Wagner and Rabuy discuss the private prison industry at the end of the article. Here, they write:

“To illustrate both the scale of the private prison industry and the critical fact that this industry works under contract for government agencies — rather than arresting, prosecuting, convicting and incarcerating people on its own — we displayed these companies as a subset of the public corrections system.”(1)

As was argued in “MIM(Prisons) on U.S. Prison Economy”, “[i]f prison labor was a gold mine for private profiteers, then we would see corporations of all sorts leading the drive for more prisons.”(2)

In light of this, the injustice system in the United $tates and the prisons (both private and public) are used by the government to oppress national minorities. And the government is rewarded with enthusiasm and renewed vigor by white Amerikkkans, who goose-step into formation with ecstasy when racist politicians like Donald Trump go on about being “tough on crime”.

MIM Thought stresses the focus on imperialism both inside and outside the United $nakes. The network of prisons is no exception – imperialism here functions as a method of control by Amerikkkans of oppressed nations. As the statistics presented by Wagner and Rabuy clearly demonstrate, there is no “Prison Industrial Complex.” There is a systematic attempt to destroy individuals, communities, and nations.(4)

I was recently informed of your publication Under Lock & Key and would like to receive it. I would also like to receive your Texas Pack. For the second time I am aware of TDCJ employees who have used the excuse that uniform commercial code (UCC) is contraband to confiscate prisoners trust property of all kinds. Also, they commit theft of legal notes and commercial study materials and write disciplinary charges resulting in placement into medium and closed custody. Their actions are in violation of the First Amendment and in dishonor of court decisions:

Walter Jones v. Michigan DOC Patricia Caruso et al, 2007 Dist Ct Lexus 72469 Case No. 05-CV-72817-DT

Walter Jones Plaintiff Appelle v. Patricia Caruso et al Def. Appellant 569 F 3d 258 2009 U.S. app. Lexis 13371; 2009 Fed U.S. Ct of app 6 th Circ. No. 05-72817

The following case was from TDCJ Ellis Uni, therefore they are aware of their actions: Harry Kerley v W. Stephens, Civ No H-14 Case 4:14-CV-03491, 2015

From this list of what was taken from me I think you will agree there has been a violation. Step 1 and 2 grievances are useless, just as they were in the Kerly incident and many others. I believe we need a class action law suit. Can you provide information on this or perhaps some legal specialist contacts.

Per usual in these instances of theft the TDCJ officers are acting under “color of law” by using govt forms declaring the property taken as UCC related materials however they do not provide itemized lists of what exactly they have taken.

I am writing to you to let you know how things are in Texas and their mistreatment of minorities and indigents in the criminal justice system. The right to an indictment is no longer a right anymore. If you are charged with a criminal offense and if you are indigent and a minority, you will be approached by an attorney outside the court room he will lie and say he is appointed by the court, even though statute states your right to an attorney under the 6 th amendment starts upon indictment in Texas unless waived. But these lawyers force you in trial court by producing a fabricated indictment that was not returned by any grand jury. And these judges and DA are sentencing you to their slave camps.

There is no way a person without funds can defend themselves these lawyers are paid by the court, even if you tell them you want to defend yourself the judges won’t even let you do that, they try to force you into a jury trial and the case isn’t capital, they have the jury already picked out you can’t win.

I’ve been getting messed with quite often since 12 March 2016, when an officer J. Russell let an inmate from another yard onto mine. He assaulted another prisoner, tried to assault me, the gunner shot at me but hit the other prisoner and I got drenched in pepper spray. Grivances are being arbitrarily rejected having to do with falsification of documents (the incident reports).

…Estoy pensando acercar a la chica con la que estoy quedando a la política. La empezaré a tantear por primera vez sobre este tema mañana. Ella tiene 24 años y yo 31, así que creo que puedo moldearla. Además, es inocente y confiada. Intentaré enseñarla cuando la haya tanteado. Agradecería que me respondierais y me dijerais lo que pensáis de este caso particular.

MIM(Prisons) responde: Normalmente, desaconsejamos que se reclute a alguien con quien se está saliendo, sobre todo si dicha persona no ha mostrado estar interesada por sí sola en el antiimperialismo. No obstante, coincidimos con tu aparente actitud prudente de “tantearla” primero. Es una táctica de seguridad prudente no poner todas las cartas sobre la mesa respecto a tu actividad política con alguien que no estás segur@ de si lo va a tolerar.

Otra cosa que has comentado es que es más joven, inocente y confiada, e insinúas que te aprovecharás de eso. Es así como creas resentimiento y, cuando una persona está resentida con otra asociada con el movimiento, se pone en peligro dicho movimiento. Esto es más probable cuando está involucrado el amor. Esa es la primera razón por la que no mezclar las relaciones con el reclutamiento: La gente confunde las motivaciones. Reclutar a amig@s es algo menos arriesgado, pero también tiene este problema. Por otro lado, es cierto que l@s jóvenes están más abiert@s a políticas revolucionarias, lo que puede llevarnos a emprender tácticas como repartir folletos en las escuelas. Nuestra actitud no debe ir dirigida a aprovecharnos de l@s jóvenes o de las mujeres en general, usando características derivadas de la opresión de género a la que se enfrentan. Más bien, debemos acceder al resentimiento justificado que pueden tener por esa opresión para que dejen de lado las características negativas que las ha animado y volverse revolucionarias.

En situaciones más avanzadas, esto puede producirse de otra manera en la que l@s camaradas comiencen a preguntar si alguien ha empezado a juntarse porque está saliendo con un@ camarada o porque cree por sí mism@ en la lucha. Por ello, tanto para ella individu@ como para el colectivo es mejor ser clar@ y científic@ sobre cuál es la posición de cada un@.

Reclutar siempre debe hacerse basándose en una explicación científica de la línea política. Naturalmente, la subjetividad entra en juego y no hay nada de malo en adornar las cosas de manera que sean más atractivas para las masas (ej. Forma/ lenguaje). Sin embargo, no está bien manipular a la gente basándose en su subjetividad para que hagan política por otras razones distintas a su apoyo a dichas políticas, ya que esto conlleva a confusión, tanto políticamente como interpersonalmente. Esta es una cuestión realmente estratégica cuando decimos no usar el sexo, el coqueteo o la amistad para reclutar gente. Nuestro objetivo es enseñar a la gente a pensar científicamente y crear organizaciones científicas fuertes.

Esto no quiere decir que la mayoría de la gente en los movimientos de masas sean pensadoræs científic@s convencid@s por motivaciones puramente objetivas. Así que existen cuestiones tácticas sobre qué lenguaje e imágenes utilizar para presentar nuestro mensaje a las masas de manera que puedan identificarse con él. Llevar uniformes, asociar buena música con nuestro movimiento o que personas famosas recomienden nuestro trabajo son todo tácticas que atraen al subjetivismo de la gente sin manipular al individu@ y, por tanto, sin poner en peligro el movimiento.

Como mínimo, la mitad de nuestr@s lectoræs están en prisión e, incluso en la universidad o en cualquier comunidad más pequeña, verás a menudo que gente con la que ya tenías amistad está comenzando a interesarse por la política. Entonces, se trata de tener la habilidad de separar el trabajo del placer. Los desacuerdos políticos no deben decidir las amistades y viceversa. Una táctica útil para esta situación, si sientes que podría haber un conflicto de intereses o confusión, es pasar un@ amig@ a otr@ camarada para que estæ sea su contacto principal y reclutador@. Esto da más independencia a dicho amig@ para explorar la política en sus propios términos con menos presión por las implicaciones de que este acuerdo político contigo sea un requisito para dicha amistad.

Un@ nuev@ camarada al que le ha convencido nuestra causa informó cómo otr@ prisioner@ le lanzó una publicación de ULK a su regazo de camino a una audiencia y dijo: “mira, esto te va a gustar.” Much@s de nuestr@s suscriptoræs afirmaron haber descubierto ULK en las zonas comunes. Ambos son ejemplos del “dejar caer”, una técnica para difundir nuestras ideas tanto como sea posible para garantizar que tod@s l@s interesad@s tienen la oportunidad de estar expuest@s a ellas.

Encontrar el equilibrio correcto entre lanzar una amplia red, como la técnica de “dejar caer”, y desarrollar un nuevo cuadro uno a uno es una cuestión táctica complicada. MIM siempre ha errado en el lanzamiento de una amplia red. Esto se basa en la decisión estratégica de que, en nuestras condiciones, es más importante crear opinión pública contra el imperialismo que crear organizaciones de cuadros. No obstante, necesitamos que la gente haga más que leer ULK y nuestro sitio web. No importa si están apoyando o no los proyectos de MIM(Prisons), nosotr@s necesitamos que la gente dé un paso adelante por el antiimperialismo para amplificar esa voz antiimperialista y construir instituciones independientes de l@s oprimid@s. L@s oprimid@s nos contactan todos los días en busca de ayuda. Necesitamos que más camaradas den un paso adelante y creen el poder necesario para proporcionar soluciones reales a sus problemas.

I got your pamphlet from the man who killed himself. I was his neighbor. When it happened he cried for help. In they walk by him like he was not there. For 2 days he cried tears. He cried saying help me! Help me! Sorry I had to get that off my chest.

My wife had to get a lawyer to deal with all the BS that’s been going on. I have a 6 year sentence. I’m not from TX. I’m from LA. My court appointed lawyer tricked me in to signing for time. He told me that I was signing for him to represent me. I had told him that I couldn’t see without my glasses. Then he said that. So I appealed it. They gave me a court appointed lawyer.

I been messed around by the TX system. They play by their own rules. But I like what you are saying.

I am here in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and like so few, I try every day to understand the ignorance of not only the staff but also my comrades. They are closed-minded when it comes to life outside the United States and they do not want to listen to some knowledge from someone who is a foreigner, as I am illegal and have no family here in this so-called great country. I really do not see it, as the only thing I came here to do is make money and return back to my homeland with the funds.

As time progressed, I was captured and brought to justice as the newsmedia reported. Well, the reason I’m even writing this is to give someone else the insight and knowledge about how difficult it is to keep in touch with your loved ones outside the United States.

A one-ounce U.S. postal letter costs $1.15 to start with. The Department of Corrections wants you to keep in touch with your loved ones or get a support system, yeah ok. Tell me how, when you can’t get a bar of soap to wash yourself, but I’m going to make a telephone call to my loved ones at a rate of $38 for 15 minutes, and the monthly payroll I receive is only $12 a month with 30% of that taken out for court/admin costs.

That then leaves me enough to send one or two letters that never arrive there. They claim that once it leaves the institution, it is up to the U.S. Postal Service. The Department of Corrections charges me for international mail rates but I don’t get “return to sender” services with it, and like I just said, sometimes it gets lost in delivery.

Where is my mail going to? When the post office tells me to spend money on tracking numbers, but U.S. mail is not the same as international mail, so once it leaves U.S. waters and then enters international waters, the U.S. tracking number becomes null and void and the money is gone just like the mail.

I am trying my best to learn American English, not only to fight for myself but also the next foreigner that gets in trouble in this so-called great country. So, with no help or support I sit here in the tomb and write in hopes that maybe someone will respond and be able to help me out with the necessary logistics, and moral support, etc.

The ignorance and apathy of some of these so-called Americans eats me inside. Why not try to do better for not just yourself but your loved ones? But they act like there is no future for them.

For all my comrades all over the world, I send my blessings and urge you to never stop the fight & struggle.

I read with interest the article on the lack of a constitutional right to a grievance procedure ( Prisoners Unite Against Suppression of VA DOC Grievance Procedure) in ULK 54. This happens to be an issue I researched a few months ago. Unfortunately I’m Federal, not state, so I can’t file a §1983 anyway, which is a shame because I’d just love to take this one to the Supreme Court.

This legal argument should work. However, the only place I can see it working is at the Supreme Court itself. I offer it in the hopes that someone else can run with it.

The article is quite correct. There are many 4th circuit opinions throwing out prisoners’ §1983 actions for denial of or retaliation against filing grievances, most of which go back to Adams v. Rice 40F.3d.72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). This opinion, however, was before the 1995 Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1997(e). The argument is that, as 1997(e) came later than Adams v. Rice, and congress could not have intended to make a constitutional right (the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances under Amendment 1) contingent upon conduct that is not constitutionally protected, that therefore Adams v. Rice and all subsequent case law should be declared null and void.

Digging a bit deeper, I found that Adams bases its opinion on Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir 1991) claiming there is “no constitutional right to participate in grievance proceedings.”

The problem with this is that Flick v Alba states, “When the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner’s right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.” After 1997(e), of course, that last clause is false, 1997(e) specifically and deliberately makes a prison’s refusal to entertain grievances compromise the right of access to the courts. That’s what 1997(e) is for!

If there be any justice, this is a slam-dunk argument. Of course, there isn’t any justice. But occasionally a judge, wanting to gain status by overturning a long-held precedent might do the right thing, if only accidentally. It might also have some value as a rallying point for activism.

One might also argue a violation of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment, but I’m not sure how much that would add. A couple of paragraphs couldn’t hurt, though.