This brief letter is not a complaint but only to raise my voice against
the injustice I’m experiencing here at the Estelle High Security Unit.
I understand the implications pursuant to Correspondence Rules BP-03.91,
of which each out-going and in-coming letter to and from offenders are
indeed subject to inspection and if such letter is denied then the
offender and the sender will be provided a Correspondence Denial Form
within seventy-two hours of rejection. This is designed to go into
detail informing the offender of the appropriate cause and the evidence
relied upon for this denial, and whether he intends to appeal. If he
does not wish to appeal, then he has the choice either to have the
letter destroyed or sent back to the sender at the offender’s expense.
This rule, policy or procedure is not being followed.
As stated, there is no question a uniform procedure for denying
out-going and in-coming mail is needed. I don’t have a problem with the
policy. I have a problem with the process. The BP-03.91 policy is a
complete method of procedures, which establish a way of doing things and
each procedure shall be related in accordance to policy.
What the mailroom staff (Office of Intelligence) are doing is
shifting/switching procedure from one day to the next to cover whatever
actions they’ve taken. In a very plain term, its unfair and totally
inappropriate to shift or switch procedures in midstream without giving
prior warning to offenders. How can any offender follow rules which
constantly change without any notice? Rules, policies and procedures
that change without notice confuse me as well as other offenders.
This policy is vague and ambiguous, leaving major openings for
misinterpretation and giving unreasonable discretionary power to unit
Gang Intelligence Officers that TDCJ-ID has left largely unchecked and
unquestioned and untrained in key areas of the policy which, in return,
causes animosity towards myself and other offenders. They use these
misinterpretations to vastly exaggerate accounts of supposed
gang-related information, and to justify denial of out-going mail. When
mail is denied it often takes weeks before an offender is notified or if
the correspondence is not denied it is sent out weeks later. All this is
under the guise of security.
If the G.I. (reader) decides my letter contains dangerous content the
letter will automatically be denied. How these readers define such
content, and who plays a role in making that determination are questions
without clear answers. And while such denials require written
notification, in practice that rarely happens.
A review of the process exposes a policy in which sections of the policy
either contradict each other or are shifted from one day to the next so
that no one is responsible. The mailroom, the G.I. and/or Wing officer
or even other offenders have access to our mail. The policy isn’t even
uniformly applied. These type of standard procedures will continue to
exist because the mailroom staff insists on denying out-going mail
without providing a written notice and without returning back offender’s
stamped envelopes.
For over two years on this unit, when out-going mail was denied the
offender was informed and his stamped envelopes were confiscated. Only
after the mailroom staff became so sloppy that they no longer even
passed out any denial forms were there enough questions raised that it
was discovered that the offender was supposed to receive his stamped
envelope back, how nice! However, if questioned about where the
thousands of stolen or wrongly confiscated stamps when to the past two
years, there is no answer. In fact, any offender ho dares to ask will be
retaliated against. Even when caught, the mailroom staff will deny that
their conduct was unlawful in any respect.
Enclosed in this letter are grievance step one and two proof of my
effort to remedied the problem but as you can see their response is
always the same “…The Estelle Unit mailroom is processing all incoming
and outgoing correspondence in accordance to BP-03.91. No further action
is warranted…” I have other grievances that consist of the same issues
but were handled with the same answer.