Federal Prisons

I have been incarcerated 27 years now and most of my time I’ve spent on “Safe keeping.” We are usually discriminated against by both inmates and officers. I have experienced verbal insults and threats and shortened food in the chow hall. Complaining does no good and the grievance system is a joke where the complaint comes back “officers deny all allegations.” I guess some people feel the need to vent their frustrations out on others to relieve their own problems, but I wonder why people can’t treat others properly.

Medical here is strange; we wait in a cage for hours to see a “provider” who offers aspirin or other generic medication at the cost of $100. I have seen many times where they misdiagnose a prisoner or even find no problem when the person later finds out he has cancer.

I am on solitary confinement and need your assistance on legal matters. How to sue the people that are mistreating me by refusing to feed me or leaving me without water for days, and no clothing. Thank you for your help.

Dear fellow fighters for Justice and for what’s right. By the time this Missive reaches you I hope and pray that it finds you in the best of health and spirits; that you are being blessed abundantly above all you could think or imagine. I am writing to you in regards to the Texas Pack. This current administration (i.e. wardens, majors, sgts, etc) are blatantly disregarding all guidelines and protocol set forth by the A.C.A. (American Correctional Association) and TDCJ itself.

Here at French Robertson Unit we just came off a 30 day lock-down and were denied hygiene and correspondence privileges per the Administrative Directive (AD-03.31). Some offenders have received major disciplinary cases and don’t have the opportunity to attend their own hearing. Due process violation. I could give you a laundry list of things and violations committed but I would need more postage! The crux of the matter, unembellished, is that the wardens and ranking staff are in direct contravention to guidelines TDCJ adopted and instituted. These established rules and principles are for the protection and enforcement of private rights for the employees and officers, as well as for the offender population. I humbly ask that you send me the Texas Pack.

By a bit of serendipity, I recently ran across the contact info for MIM(Prisons) and on a whim subscribed to the newsletter without fully understanding what I was to receive. After reading ULK 66 (the first response to my initial request) I feel inspired to offer my first thoughts of the movement in hopes it may aid in future recruiting.

First and foremost, I tend to be distrustful of any organization, especially those with strong viewpoints. However, this fear was greatly abated by the statement that members need not agree with all points of the group so long as they do not actively oppose them. I feel this is an incredible strength of USW, and inclusion in any individual organization is a powerful tool for recruitment. It projects confidence by saying “we don’t have to control your views” and encourages those who are close to, but not in, alignment with said views to sit and listen to what you have to say.

Secondly, I was impressed by the article/response format and self-criticisms. As an extension of the first point, it shows that USW practices what it preaches by allowing uncensored articles to be published, and independently it shows that no one, party leaders included, is above reproof. In my opinion, any organization willing to hold its members/leaders responsible for their actions is a cut above. We are all human, and prone to human error. To pretend otherwise is a discouragement.

My one word of criticism would be the use of jargon which made some articles obfuscated. I’ve written this article to mirror the way I normally speak, without regard to what my readers may understand, to help illustrate this point. While I have no doubt many readers will understand all my words, I’m sure there will be many who are put off by my use of uncommon terms. The same is true of any specialized language. While most words can be looked up in a dictionary (although lumpen still puzzles me), I think it is best to use simple language in recruitment material, or be sure to include a quick definition hear the beginning.

I hope these observations will prove helpful to others. May your words match your deeds, your deeds match your values, and your values match your beliefs.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This is a good reminder to all writers for ULK that we should try to write in language that is accessible to our readers. Sometimes it will be necessary to use a word like “lumpen” because it is the only word that describes what we are talking about. But even then we can try to define our words in context. Sometimes we receive article submissions that are clearly written by well educated folks, but which seem to be showing off their vocabulary, and making it much harder to read than necessary. So we agree that writing as you would speak is a good general guideline.

With that said, we welcome everyone to submit articles to ULK regardless of your writing skill and political education level. We often get letters from folks who are hesitant to submit articles until they get more education. We suggest instead to just write about something you know. If you see some abuses at your prison, write about that. If you see some good organizing going on where you’re housed, write about that. Start from what you know based on your real world observation, and add political analysis to that as you are comfortable. We can always help with the analysis, and we are happy to help with your writing too. But if you write like you talk, chances are it will come across as readable and make for a good article.

Let us know if you need a copy of our writers guide which gives you some helpful tips on language and format and topics.

And here’s a definition of First World lumpen, the term we most commonly use: The class of people in the First World who are excluded from the productive process. By virtue of living in the First World this class, on average, receives more material benefits from imperialism than the global proletariat. As such their interests are not the same as the exploited classes and we do not include them in the “lumpen-proletariat.” But their conditions in many ways parallel those of the lumpen-proletariat standing in stark contrast to the majority of the First World populations.

This is the first article I have written for ULK. I was especially interested in writing about the topic above because, all too often, I have witnessed how the ‘gangster’ type are eager to dictate to others how their mission is to bring unity, yet their actions and attitudes are completely misplaced. For instance, if we are to fight oppression within the prison system, how is extorting other prisoners, assaulting others, et cetera, a means to that end?

I am not, nor would I ever become, gang-affiliated. In my opinion, if a person joins a gang, it is because they are too weak to stand up for themselves. Prison has become a daycare. Whites sell out whites, blacks team up with whites and babies have babies. What the hell? I’ve met pedophiles who are ranking gang officials, and snitches are free to roam as they please. Nothing makes any sense anymore and, just for the record, any gang which encourages a prisoner to extend their sentences or which demand that parents of children perform acts which result in them not being able to see them, that crap is no better than the lowest of the lowly.

The things gangs in Missouri do and continue to do are stupid and their actions bring upon us all the oppression. Gang members in Missouri, though they continuously spout the B.S. about solidarity, unity and integrity are, in turn, the cause and continuing justification for our being oppressed.

Instead of fighting for our right to not be abused by ‘the system,’ Missouri gangs are the tinder with which the fire under oppression is fueled. For every instance of stupidity by Missouri gang members, we, as a whole, lose an integral part of the overall voice with which we need to be able to defend ourselves from the wrongs of the system.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This author asserts that “if a person joins a gang, it is because they are too weak to stand up for themselves.” We ask in return: why is it wrong to seek out others to help you defend yourself? Lumpen organizations arose, on the streets and in prisons, in response to very real threats to the safety of oppressed nation people. It is not realistic to think that, in the face of institutional violence and attacks, or organized violence from other groups of people, one should stand alone. And seeking this help and unity is not a sign of weakness.

However, we do agree with this writer that organizations that require their members to engage in anti-people activity, or which engage in actions that harm the general prisoner population, are not friends of the fight against the criminal injustice system. There are many different types of lumpen organizations and conditions vary in different areas. In some situations staying away from L.O.s might be the best practice for anti-imperialists. But at this stage, to organize the lumpen masses, we need to be building unity between lumpen organizations where possible, not perpetuating the fighting that the prison administration encourages. We regularly print articles in ULK from comrades in lumpen orgs doing just this sort of building behind bars. This is the leadership we need to highlight and learn from as most of our readers in prison are in or have been in lumpen organizations..

I strongly disagree with the exclusion of whites from the ranks of the lumpen within the United $tates. (see the tenth paragraph of Wiawimawo’s article “Sakai’s Investigation of the Lumpen in Revolution” in ULK 64) Although most whites in the United $tates. enjoy “white privilege” there are also whole communities of disenfranchised, impoverished whites. These communities are heavily reliant on government support systems to survive (i.e. food stamps, SSI, welfare, section 8 housing, etc.) They are also rife with crime, drugs, and street gangs.

For example, take the lumpen organizations (L.O.s) from Chicago (i.e. the Gaylords and the Simon City Royals). Both of these organizations were started by disenfranchised, impoverished communities consisting of mostly whites. They were originally founded to protect their communities from outside forces.

By stating that only oppressed “minorities” can be considered lumpen, Wiawimawo is engaging in paternalist politics that causes divisions within the movement. The truth is that any people that fit the political, social, and economic profile are lumpen. Disenfranchisement is not unique, nor immune, to any nationality. In solidarity!

Wiawimawo of MIM(Prisons) responds: We are sending you a copy of “Who is the Lumpen in the United $tates?” so you can better understand our position on this question. First let’s look at the quote from my article that you are responding to:

“This is why, in our work on the First World lumpen in the United $tates, we excluded white people from the model by default. We did this despite knowing many white lumpen individuals who are comrades and don’t fit the model.”

Note i say that we know “many white lumpen individuals who are comrades,” meaning we agree with you that there are white lumpen, we just excluded them from the model presented in the paper cited. So why did we do this? Well, it is mostly based in our assessment of the principal contradiction in the United $tates being between the white oppressor nation and the oppressed nations. In the paper we do write:

“White men [who are currently/formerly incarcerated lumpen] number about 1.3 million, but are much more likely to find employment and join the labor aristocracy after release from prison. While in prison white men do fall into the lumpen class but lack the oppressed nation outlook and so often join white supremacist groups rather than supporting revolutionary organizing. This is just one factor contributing to a national outlook that leads us to exclude whites overall when discussing the revolutionary potential of the First World lumpen.”

We also point out that historically the settler nation made up of Europeans has always been a petty bourgeois nation, while the oppressed nations have histories that are largely proletarian, but also lumpen-proletarian. History affects our national and class consciousness, so we can’t just look at a snapshot in time. But the point of the paper was to show the size of the First World lumpen in the oppressed nations of the United $tates and a snapshot of how their conditions differ significantly from the white nation.

We’d say the examples you provide are exceptions that prove the rule. It takes some digging to come up with them, but certainly they exist. And in the context of the topic of this issue of Under Lock & Key we can certainly agree with you that they should not be ignored.

Most often, in U.$. prisons, when we talk about white L.O.s we are talking about white nationalist groups of some type. In our study, white supremacist organizations that are promoting fascism in this country today are made up of three main groups: former military, members of lumpen organizations/prisoners, and alienated petty bourgeois youth gathering around racist subcultures on the internet. The first two are the more dangerous groups, though the third gives the movement more of a feeling of a mass base of popularity. In our work it is with the second group that we can have the most impact. And we’ve had a number of former hardcore white supremacists become leaders within United Struggle from Within, and many more have participated in progressive battles for prisoner rights. It is in such alliances with the oppressed nations around the common interests of the imprisoned lumpen that we can really win over potential recruits who were initially drawn to fascism.

We welcome reports on examples of white lumpen organizing in the interests of ending oppression, and further analysis of the white lumpen as a base for progressive organizing.

The third goal of the expanded newspaper [from the ULK 64 “Make ULK Monthly” article (1)] states, “Broader distribution of anti-imperialist information.” Furthermore, in the “who should be part of this expansion?” section of the article MIM(Prisons) states that “we will continue to publish articles from individuals who share our anti-imperialist agenda though perhaps are not Maoists.”

I believe that the third goal can be achieved by practicing the above quote. The ULK subscription rate would increase by allowing “outsiders” to publish material within the publication (such as anarchists). This increase in subscribers would also increase the number of art and article submissions to ULK, as well as donations.

Let us remember that Marx agreed with Proudhon and other anarchists in regard to the necessity for the proletariat to abolish the state. It is only by abolishing the state that we can create a class-less society (since the state is the manifestation of class antagonisms). The dividing line between communists and anarchists is not the abolition of the state, but the process in which the state should be abolished. Because there are many similarities between communist and anarchist ideologies both ULK and its readers would benefit greatly from the inclusion of anarchist commentary (besides, MIM(Prisons) can always comment on an anarchist article to correct it if necessary.)

MIM(Prisons) responds: MIM(Prisons) welcomes anarchist writers to submit to ULK. This writer is correct that our areas of disagreement are limited to the strategy to getting to classless society, and we agree on our ultimate goal of society with no groups of people having power over other groups. There is also a lot to agree on in the struggle along the way.

The new newsletter in the works will still be a Maoist newsletter, meaning that all writings will pass through a Maoist editorial staff that will either edit or respond to any writings that disagree with the basic tenets of Maoism depending on the position of the author. We do think our readers benefit from seeing debates, and we want to focus on debates that push our movement and our unity forward. We share this comrade’s idea that expanding the contributors to this publication will also expand our distribution. We invite potential contributors to get in touch.

RE: FDOC/Martin CI security, and other staff members blatant and rampant convenient disregard of Chapter 33-401.401 and Fla.Stat.944.115. Use of tobacco prohibition.

With respect, I’m serving a life sentence for armed robbery, currently housed at Martin CI, where prisoners, (myself included) are facing a very detrimental issue regarding continuous risk of contracting cancer and/or other tobacco related illnesses due mostly to constant exposure to second hand smoke from staff members openly smoking cigarettes here and basically at every Florida prison. FDOC staff members are smoking and/or chewing tobacco on prison grounds with only convenient or selective regards for health concerns and F.A.C. Chapter 33-401.401 and Fla Stat.944.115. Per policy and practice, prison staff are blessed with the legal but unrighteous double standard guarantee of unlimited administrative impunity. Their behavior is condoned and encouraged by administration, they are basically above the law. They smoke and/or chew tobacco as they please while prisoners are subject to confinement for use or possession of tobacco products.

I have grieved this issue to the highest level to no avail. See appeal grievances log #18-6-37611, originally informal grievance log #430-1807-0194 regarding Overseer Swain smoking on numerous occasions. See also appeal grievance log #18-643906 originally informal grievance log #430-1808-0351 regarding Colonel Lankford chewing and spitting tobacco juice in an E-4 dormitory garbage can on 8/27/18, approximately 7:45 PM. All grievances were biasly and conveniently denied. This policy and practice continues blatantly and rampantly as of current by almost every staff member from trainee to warden(s).

On 8, January, 2019 I was issued a low bunk pass by medical Dr. Y Resilard. I submitted this low bunk pass to C-dormitory Sgt. Gilbert, who said that she would call housing and have me reassigned to a low bunk. However, a few hours later, upon inquiring the status of the bunk change, Sgt. Gilbert snapped out loud stating, “I’m not helping any fucking body any more, someone stole my pack of cigarettes from my bag in the officer station.” Thereby, punishing me for someone else’s action by refusing to call housing to honor my medical issued low bunk pass because someone stole her cigarettes, which are prohibited by Chapter 33-401.401 and Fla. stat.944.115. On 1/19/19, as a result, I submitted a grievance on the issue of mentioning the cigarette incident. I’m still assigned a top bunk because of my grievance despite my having a medical issued low bunk pass.

Considering the fact that this is an ongoing issue, there is much more. Martin CI administration are going all out in war on contraband, tobacco. However, this crusade only applies to and against prisoners rather than all within the gates, including administrative higher-ups whom are fully culpable.

On December 22, 2018, for example, two prisoners were hauled off to confinement from CSB medical building lobby for being in possession of tobacco. This incident subsequently resulted in the termination of a medical staff member, a male nurse Mr. Duke. Fired in connection with introduction of contraband, tobacco, and probably prosecuted while prison staff are smoking and chewing tobacco in convenient violation of the very same introduction of contraband rule, Chapter 33-401.401. Thus exposing prisoners, whom are not allowed to smoke or chew, to constant to second hand smoke and serious risk of cancer.

In the administrative war on contraband, tobacco, the rules are subject to change on the fly, depends on which shift is working, the prison is operated this way one hour/day and that way the next. The only thing consistent here is inconsistency. Prisoners are being sent back to their housing units while in the middle of their CSB appoints, being constantly rescheduled. Property, library, chapel, housing, even legal mail gets no priority in the name of limiting prisoner movement in attempt to “stop the so-called passing of contraband,” as claimed by Assistant Warden J. Holtz. All this while Martin CI staff members, Warden down to trainee, are the main ones smoking cigarettes and exposing prisoners to second hand smoke and risk of cancer. The rules here are simply being adhered to or applied conveniently only against prisoners.

Prison staff are highly addicted to tobacco products making this a very sensitively and dangerous issue for prisoners to grieve due to knowing staff full tendency to retaliate. Prisoners are in real fear of prison staff retaliation. Prisoners also have permanently instilled justified lack of faith in the grievance process. Prisoners have gotten so used to being ignored, rubber stamped, denied to the highest level. For example, S. Millikens in central office is 100% anti-prisoner, no matter how timely, factual and/or meritorious prisoner’s claim(s), it is denied, rubber stamped. I am totally aware of the danger I face for writing this letter. I know what could happen to me. I don’t smoke, but I will still end up cancerous, dead, whether I submit this or not. All prisoners may as well resort to smoking cigarette butts dropped by prison staff and catch cancer. We’re all going to get cancer from prison staff second hand smoke anyway.

REMEDY: That you in higher office move to objectively enforce lawful adherence to mandated Chapter 33-401.401 and Fla.Stat.944.115 if prison cancer rate and money for cancer treatment of Florida prisoners is a concern, enforce the rules all the way, not just conveniently abasing prisoners, but against all within the gates.

A copy of the foregoing is being submitted to Martin CI mail personnel to be first class mailed to FDOC South Regional Director, FDOC Secretary and Fla Governor Office on 2/18/19.

FDOC Secretary
Mark Inch
501 S. Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399

RE: 2/15/19, AND ONGOING BRUTALITY OF PRISONERS IN HANDCUFFS

February 15, 2019, Between 1 pm and 3 pm, during lunch feeding. On walkway in front of medical building, Sgt. Logo and Overseer, St. Croix were roughly escorting handcuffed prisoner, [X] to confinement. Sgt. Lobo literally took out his side arm canister of pepper spray and emptied it in the handcuffed prisoner’s eyes and face area. Sgt. Lobo then slammed prisoner X to the ground and repeatedly kicked him in the back and side. Many other prisoners also witnessed this brutality.

Captain Bensi came running, and rather than stopping the brutality, she literally joined in and participated. Thereby continuing, condoning and encouraging the brutality of prisoner X. Overseer Hampford and all other overseers on the walkway started ordering prisoners to their dormitories so there would be no witnesses. Per Martin CI Policy and Practice, any prisoner caught looking gets the same treatment. This is an ongoing issue here at Martin CI, especially with Sgt. Lobo.

2/6/19: Approx. 1:02 P.M. C-dormitory fixed porch video surveillance will show and prove that prisoners coming from lunch were stuck on the porch outside due to the overseer in the overseer station not opening the two main entrances to the dorm. Sgt. Lobo approached with his large side arm canister of chemical agents in hand (another unknown overseer with him whipped out his handcuffs and fitted it over his fist in brass knuckle fashion), the broken seal in his mouth as he sprayed chemical agents toward the crowded porch causing prisoners (myself included) to start coughing as the overseer in the overstation finally opens the main doors. Sgt. Lobo did this for no other reason other than the fact that he is above the law. There was no disturbance or emergency as is required by SOP to justify breaking the seal of chemical agents canister. And this is Sgt. Lobo’s second time doing this in recent weeks that I’ve witnessed.

1/1/10: between 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM. On walkway in front of medical. During dinner feeding and pill call, Sgt. Lobo gassed a prisoner who was already in handcuffs, in the face and eyes. The victim, as always, was a black prisoner.

This policy and practice clearly amounts to summary brutality, battery, excessive force. See Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d@1309: “Once a prisoner has stopped resisting, there is no longer a need for force. So the use of force thereafter is disproportionate to the need.” The issue here is the fact that these prisoners are not resisting, they are being gassed and beaten, only after they have peacefully submitted to handcuffs. Other prisoners are looking on, but there is no telling how long prisoners can remain tolerant being caught in such bias and no-win-situations. Our backs are being forced against the walls here. Please do something before the worst comes to pass.

2/13/19: Submitted informal grievance RE: 2/6/19 and prior issues in Sgt. Lobo gassings. Grievance still pending. Legal mail being intentionally delayed, haven’t had legal mail in 2 days. Can’t get out of the dormitory, no reason other than abuse of authority and collective punishment.

I am writing on account of a correctional officer stripping me nude, placing me in handcuffs, slamming me, choking me unconscious for no reason on video trying to kill me. Any help would gladly be appreciated. See:[Case no.] in Bowie County, TX, to view this video admitted into evidence. The correctional officer turned his back toward the camera while choking me, but video shows me unresponsive afterwards.