MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Under Lock & Key is a news service written by and for prisoners with a focus on what is going on behind bars throughout the United States. Under Lock & Key is available to U.S. prisoners for free through MIM(Prisons)'s Free Political Literature to Prisoners Program, by writing:
MIM(Prisons) PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140.
by a North Carolina prisoner November 2012 permalink
The prison system in North Carolina does not have a law library. The
courts say they don’t need to provide law libraries because we have the
North Carolina Prisoner Legal Service, Inc. (NCPLS). The truth is NCPLS
helps maybe one or two prisoners a year.
Recently NCPLS sent me a letter telling me not to write back about the
publication class action lawsuit case Urbanial v. Stanley until
I have filed a grievance and the grievance is appealed to Step 3 and I
get the response back. When I did that I sent the grievance and response
to NCPLS, only to have them send the materials back without any letter
explaining why they sent them back.
I have requested assistance from NCPLS in civil matters 25 or more
times. This is going back to the 1990s when my civil rights were being
violated over and over again. As NCPLS states in one of their letters,
it’s a price we the prisoners must pay for being prisoners. I am not
allowed to even touch a staff member, and they should not be allowed to
unjustly pepper spray me, etc. When they do, I have to go through a
grievance system before I can file the lawsuit in court, and when I do
file lawsuits they are dismissed. As you can see, I am given no legal
assistance in filing these lawsuits either.
MIM(Prisons) adds: This comrade continues to fight repression and
censorship with the odds stacked against h. Over the years, others in
North Carolina have been researching and fighting the lack of law
libraries. Unfortunately, on paper, the nominal existence of the NCPLS
enables North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) to skirt the
Constitutional requirement that it provides its prisoners access to
courts.
Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977) permits prison authorities
to provide either law libraries or counsel to satisfy this
requirement, but it does not need to provide both. When a prisoner’s
appointed counsel is useless, and they don’t have a law library in which
to research a case to challenge this, their only hope is assistance from
outside organizations and supporters.
The Prisoners’ Legal Clinic is one such organization, under the
MIM(Prisons) umbrella, which was reestablished a few years ago in an
attempt to provide some of this much-needed legal support to our
comrades with an anti-imperialist focus. One of the help guides we
distribute for prisoners to use and build on is related to access to
courts. This help guide is in very rough format currently, but with the
expertise of our jailhouse lawyer contacts we can clean it up, and begin
to distribute it more widely.
To get involved in the Prisoners’ Legal Clinic, write to MIM(Prisons)
and say you want to put in work on this project!
Greetings. The struggle is long and arduous, and sometimes we do etch
out significant victories, as in the case of our brotha in In re
Crawford, 206 Cal.App.4th 1259 (2012).
It’s important to emphasize that this victory is a significant step in
reaffirming that prisoners are entitled to a measure of First Amendment
protection that cannot be ignored simply because the state dislikes the
spiel. New Afrikan prisoners have a right to identify with their
birthright if they so choose, as does anyone else for that matter –
Black, White or Brown. …
[California prison officials] have gone so far as to boldly proclaim
that the term New Afrikan was created by the Black Guerilla Family (BGF)
and that those who identify as or use the term are declaring their
allegiance to the BGF, which has been declared a prison gang. They have
sought to suppress its usage by validating (i.e. designating as a gang
member or associate) anyone who uses the term or who dares mention the
name George Jackson. …
Our brotha’s case In Re Crawford was filed June 4, 2012, and
certified for publication June 13. In a brilliant piece of judicial
reasoning, a panel of justices in a 3-0 decision finally reaffirmed a
prisoner’s First Amendment right to free speech and expression, stating:
Freedom of speech is first among the rights which form the foundation of
our free society. “The First Amendment embodies our choice as a nation
that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom –
the unfettered interchange of ideas – not whatever the State may view as
fair.” (Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (2011) 131
S.Ct. 2806). “The protection given speech and press was fashioned to
assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of
political and social changes desired by the people … All ideas having
even the slightest redeeming social importance – unorthodox ideas,
controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of
opinion – have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable
because they encroach upon the limited area of more important
interests.” (Roth v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 476, 484.”
The programs embodied in the New Afrikan Collective Think Tank, New
Afrikan Institute of Criminology 101, the George Jackson University and
the New Afrikan ideology itself are inclusive programs emphasizing a
solution-based approach to carnage in the poverty stricken slums from
where many of us come. The CDCR Prison Intelligence Units (PIU) have
sought to suppress these initiatives simply because they do not like the
message. They have marched into court after court with one standard
line: New Afrikan means BGF and these initiatives are promoting the BGF.
In re Crawford continues,
As recently noted by Chief Justice Roberts, “[t]he First Amendment
reflects ‘a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on
public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’ [Citation.]
That is because ‘speech concerning public affairs is more than
self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.’ [Citation.] …
Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of
First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
(Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. , [131 S.Ct. 1207,
1215].
In re Crawford is a very important ruling because the justices
said these protections apply to prisoners as well. …
George Jackson cannot be removed from the fabric of the people’s
struggles in this society any more than Malcolm X can or Medger Evers or
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Harriett Tubman or Sojourner Truth or Ida
B. Wells, Rosa Parks or Frederick Douglass, or the countless others
who’ve fought and struggled for a brighter future for generations to
come.
What CDCR and its PIU are trying to do is make a run around the First
Amendment by shielding its suppression activity under the guise of
preventing gang activity, just as it’s done historically, which gave
rise to Procunier v. Martinez (1974) 416 U.S. 396, 413.
In In re Crawford, CDCR argued for an exception to the Martinez
test for validated gang members. The court declined to make such an
exception, holding: “Gang related correspondence is not within the
exception to the First Amendment test for censorship of outgoing inmate
mail.”
The fact that they even argued for such an exception shows their
mindset. Their intentions are to suppress that which they believe to be
repugnant, offensive and that which they believe a prisoner ought not be
thinking! In their minds we have no right to think or possess ideas,
concepts or vision beyond that which they believe we should possess.
Until In Re Crawford, these highly educated judges were
sanctioning this nonsense with twisted, perverted rulings permitting a
newspaper article or magazine layout or book to be used against a
prisoner for validation purposes [to put them in torture cells -
editor]. They issued twisted rulings like those in Ellis v.
Cambra or Hawkins v. Russell and In Re Furnace,
where the petitioner was told he has no right to his thoughts and the
First Amendment only protects a prisoner’s right to file a 602
[grievance form].
These kinds of fallacious rulings ought to be publicized so as to show
the skillful manipulation of the law by those sworn to uphold it. In
Re Crawford reestablishes that First Amendment protections apply to
prisoners and that we too enjoy a measure of free speech and expression.
We ought not be punished with fabricated notions of gang activity for
merely a thought!
However, if we are to continue to meet with success, we need our
professors, historians and intellectuals to step up and provide
declarations that we can use in our litigation, defending our right to
read, write and study all aspects of a people’s history, like Professor
James T. Campbell did in In Re Crawford. This is the only way a
prisoner can challenge the opinion of a prison official. …
Much work remains to be done, like stopping the bogus validations based
on legitimate First Amendment material. We know that many individuals
are falsely validated simply for reading George’s books or a newspaper
article, for observing Black August or for simply trying to get in touch
with one’s cultural identity.
These legitimate expressions should carry no penalty at all. You’re not
doing anything wrong, and a lot of brothas who’ve been validated simply
shouldn’t be. Nor should folks be frightened away from reading or
studying any aspect of history simply because the state doesn’t like its
content. Judges who issue fallacious opinions permitting prisoners to be
punished for reading a George Jackson book or researching your history
should be exposed.
Literary content and cultural and historical materials are not the
activities of a gang; they are political and social activities that we
have a right to express, according to the unanimous decision in In
re Crawford.
The First Amendment campaign continues to forge ahead, although we still
don’t have a lawyer. The campaign still exists, and we anticipate even
greater successes in the future. … We’ve cracked one layer of a thick
wall. Now all prisoners should take advantage of this brilliant ruling
and reassert your rights to study your heritage, Black, White or Brown.
MIM(Prisons) adds: The issue in this case was one that we have
experienced first-hand as well. For example, in 2008 a letter from a
comrade in California was censored before it could reach us because it
discussed the New Afrikan Collective, which allegedly was a code word
for the Black Guerrilla Family.(1) But in reality, the New Afrikan
Collective was a new political organization in New York focused on
bettering the conditions of New Afrikans as a nation, with no
connections to any sort of criminal activity.
The first thing that strikes us about this case is a quote from the
proceedings cited by the author above, “Gang related correspondence is
not within the exception to the First Amendment test for censorship of
outgoing inmate mail.” Unfortunately this is not part of the final
opinion explaining the decision of the court, and it is specific to
outgoing mail from the prison. Nonetheless, it would logically follow
from this statement that anything that can be connected to a gang is not
automatically dangerous or illegal.
“Gang members” have long been the boogeyman of post-integration white
Amerika. The pigs use “gang member” as a codeword to excuse the abuse
and denial of constitutional rights to oppressed nation youth,
particularly New Afrikan men. And this has been institutionalized in
more recent years with “gang enhancements,” “gang injunctions” and
“security threat group” labels that punish people for belonging to
lumpen organizations. Often our mail is censored because it mentions the
name of a lumpen organization in the context of a peace initiative or
organizing for prisoners’ humyn rights. While criminal activity is
deemed deserving more punishment with the gang label, non-criminal
activity is deemed criminal as well.
As the author discusses, it becomes a question of controlling ideas to
the extreme, where certain words are not permitted to be spoken or
written and certain symbols and colors cannot be displayed. So the quote
from the court above is just a baby step in the direction of applying
the First Amendment rights of association and expression to oppressed
nation youth. Those who are legally inclined should consider how this
issue can be pushed further in future battles. Not only is such work
important in restoring rights to people, but we can create space for
these organizations to build in more positive directions.
Part of this criminalization of a specific sector of society is the use
of self-created and perpetuated so-called experts on gang intelligence.
Most of our readers are all too familiar with this farce of a profession
that is acutely exposed by the court’s opinion in this case. The final
court opinion calls out CO J. Silveira for claiming that the plaintiff’s
letter contained an intricate code when he could provide no evidence
that this was true. They also call him out for using his “training and
experience” as the basis for all his arguments.
The warden’s argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the argument is
based solely on the unsupported assertions and speculative conclusions
in Silveira’s declaration. The declaration is incompetent as evidence
because it contains no factual allegations supporting those assertions
and conclusions. Second, even if the declaration could properly be
considered, it does not establish that the letter posed a threat to
prison security.
As great as this is, as the author of the article above points out, they
usually get away with such baseless claims. More well thought out
lawsuits like this are needed, because more favorable case law is
needed. But neither alone represents any real victory in a system that
exists to maintain the existing social hierarchy. These are just pieces
of a long, patient struggle that has been ongoing for generations. The
people must exercise the rights won here to make them real. We must
popularize and contextualize the nature of this struggle.
On 3 October 2011 I was notified by prison authorities that I had
received the September/October 2011 No. 22 issue of Under Lock &
Key (ULK) in the mail. I was further notified that I could
not have ULK because it is banned throughout the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC). I grieved this unconstitutional
banning of ULK since IDOC cannot validate its claim that
ULK is a threat to security. On 27 July 2012 I filed a Section
1983 Civil Suit against the director of IDOC, S.A. Godinez.
This lawsuit is based on the grounds that IDOC cannot substantiate the
banning of ULK and that the banning of ULK violates my
Constitutional Rights to: 1) Receive and own reading material; 2)
Have freedom of speech; and 3) Have freedom of political expression.
In my Statement of Claim I gave a brief definition of what MIM(Prisons)
and ULK are. However, I was wondering if you would like to
prepare a statement about what exactly MIM(Prisons) and ULK are
and the purpose of their existence.
In further news, on 16 August 2012 another prisoner and I received a
notice saying that we had received the July/August 2012 No. 27 issue of
ULK in the mail and that we couldn’t have it because
ULK is banned. We are both currently in the second of three
stages of the grievance procedure and will be filing a Class Action
lawsuit within the next six months challenging the banning of
ULK. This suit will merge with my already existing one.
Any information that you can send me on this topic would be greatly
appreciated.
MIM(Prisons) responds: The comrade above has not received an
issue of Under Lock & Key since November 2011. Appealing
the censorship and going through the grievance procedure will often
successfully get you the mail that the authorities are attempting to
deny. If that doesn’t work, we need to be prepared to take the censors
to court when possible.
Unfortunately, due to our very limited resources, it is very difficult
for us to offer legal assistance directly on your case. Instead we run
the Prisoners’ Legal Clinic in an attempt to empower and encourage our
subscribers to do their best putting together and filing their case on
their own. Recently another comrade offered h legal services to help
fight censorship in Illinois, which is not just an ongoing problem for
the author of this Civil Suit. We are attempting to facilitate this
anti-censorship battle and push it to a head. Remember to send in your
censorship documentation and status updates on your anti-censorship
grievances and cases so we can publicize them on our website. If you are
a lawyer on the outside and want to work on this issue, please
get in touch.
Upon deep review/research, I’ve been completely unable to find any
Oregon Law (ORS) to justify and allow the prisons in this state to
charge prisoners fines. There is no law allowing it. But there is a law
saying only a judge can change/impose fines of any kind. “The Oregon
Property Protection Act of 2000” prohibits the forfeitures of property
and funds, without a criminal conviction involving that property:
article 15 section 10(2)(b), section(3), section 10(7)(b) of the Oregon
constitution. Also, “the property of a person should not be forfeited in
a forfeiture proceeding by the government unless and until that person
is convicted of a crime involving that property.”(10)(3) The Oregon
Department of Corrections (ODOC) is a political subdivision of the
state.
Well, ODOC has taken it upon themselves to impose fines of hundreds of
dollars and automatically withdraw the money from an inmates account.
Normally, to withdraw money from our account we need to sign/and
authorize them to do it by signing a CD28 giving permission. So what
they are doing amounts to theft! And is part of their money making
racketeering illegal bullshit. Yet they’ll never get charged with
racketeering because it’s okay when pigs break the laws.
Also, there is a new tool the imperial swine have up here for ensuring
their prison population grows. It’s called Measure 57. In the past 10
years the female prison population has grown by 86% because of the
lengthening of prison sentences for drug offenses and property crimes.
And this measure will more than likely affect females more than men.
(Source: Justice Matters Spring 2012 issue)
The grievance process is a joke here. I’ve filled my allotted six a
month every month on every single rule violation that happens and none
of them have gotten anything other than “we find no evidence in your
claim.”
MIM(Prisons) responds: We commend this comrade for researching
how the Oregon prisons are violating the State’s own laws. It’s
important that we fight these battles because there are so many laws
allowing oppression, those few that we can use to defend the rights of
the oppressed must be publicized. It is very common for the pigs to
ignore the law, and it’s true that they are rarely punished for this.
But we can use these laws to our advantage. The grievance process is
just a start. The campaign to
demand our
grievances be addressed is another tactic in this fight. We have
petitions for many states that can be used to fight against the
systematic denial of grievances by building support among the prisoner
masses. Write to MIM(Prisons) for a copy of the one for your state, or
if we don’t have one help us customize the petition to your state. Legal
research and writing like this comrade is doing is essential to our
struggle against the imperialist system as a whole.
Grievances are one of the only administrative remedies we have against
unjust treatment and staff misconduct. In Oregon we also have
discrimination complaints, the right to attempt petition, a department
of corrections ombudsman and (any prisoner in any state or federal
facility can also do this next step) the ability to file with no fee a
Department of Justice (DOJ) civil rights complaint.
In Oregon, grievances come with two appeals. Then you have exhausted the
process and can go to further discrimination complaint with one appeal
and then that process is exhausted. Using either/or you can lay the
groundwork for a federal civil suit and meet the requirements of the
1997 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) providing you exhaust all
administrative remedies available to you. So, you must either exhaust
all of your grievance appeals or discrimination complaint appeals to
file suit. You may not file a grievance and a discrimination complaint
on the same issue. I always advise that you exhaust every grievance and
discrimination complaint so you retain your ability to file suit.
You can file a DOJ civil rights complaint at any time with or without
exhausting either administrative remedy. However, showing you have tried
to address the issue with no satisfaction will help your DOJ complaint.
Always create a paperwork trail. Always!
If you are having ongoing issues of some type, but can A) document a new
incident of the same type has occurred and B) have new information about
the issue, you may file another grievance under OAR 291-019-0140 (6) or
another discrimination complaint under OAR 291-006-0015 (6). However,
expect the grievance coordinator will try and stop you claiming you have
already filed a grievance/discrimination complaint on the same issue
previously. This is one of their tactics to keep you from proving an
issue is persistent and is ongoing. This is currently happening to me at
Two Rivers Correctional Institution. Ms. Reynolds, the grievance
coordinator is stopping valid grievances and discrimination complaints
when I can clearly prove the Oregon administrative rules are being
properly followed.
Always know the rules and laws you are evoking. I suggest you read up on
them and copy them so you can cite them in your grievance/discrimination
complaint process.
If your process is blocked you can take it to the Oregon DOC ombudsman
or internal affairs - or both, to keep the issue alive. Make copies of
everything you do and make sure you have followed all processes to the
letter of rule before you go to this level. As a last resort per OAR
291-107, you can attempt a petition process as well.
You may face uphill battles but if you are going to use the
grievance/discrimination complaint process, so do it right the first
time and be persistent. You may not win but you can keep the struggle
alive.
MIM(Prisons) adds: Information like this is key to push forward
our battle
demanding
our grievances be addressed. We don’t yet have a petition for
Oregon, but for many other states we have petitions prisoners can
request to push this grievance battle on the political front while
filing administrative appeals and working your way into court. For those
states that don’t yet have a petition, request the generic version and
help us customize it to your state.
Mail the petition to your loved ones and comrades inside who are
experiencing issues with the grievance procedure, or mandatory polygraph
testing. Send them extra copies to share! For more info on this
campaign, click
here.
Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the
addresses below. Supporters should send letters on behalf of prisoners.
Mr. Tom Clements, Executive Director Colorado Department of
Corrections 2862 S. Circle Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80906
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division Special Litigation
Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, PHB Washington DC 20530
Office of Inspector General HOTLINE PO Box 9778 Arlington, VA
22219
And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!
MIM(Prisons), USW PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140
Petition updated July 2012, October 2017, September 2018
Comrades, here is a CDCR regulation that we can use against censorship.
Essentially there are no ban lists. Straight from the California Code of
Regulations:
15 CCR § 3190(i)(2) “Legal Material, including legal reference
material, books, and legal pads not available in the institution
canteen, pursuant to section 3161. There shall be no ‘Approved Vendor
Lists’ for any legal publications. Inmates may receive legal
publications from any publisher, book store or book distributor that
does mail order business.”
15 CCR § 3190(i)(7) “All publications, including books and subscriptions
to periodicals, subject to section 3006. There shall be no”Approved
Vendor Lists” for any publications. Inmates may receive publications
from any publisher, book store or book distributor that does mail order
business.”
MIM(Prisons) responds: This has been official policy since 2008,
yet CDCR staff continue to cite the 2006 ban memo years after a lawsuit
put an
end
to the
ban
on MIM Distributors’s mail in the state of California. Therefore we
find it useful to reprint these rules, for comrades to use in their own
appeals. Remember to forward us any documentation of censorship and
appeals. Many of these facilities have been citing the overturned 2006
memo for years, yet claim it is a mistake when we write them for an
explanation. Establishing these patterns is important in building our
cases. While they’ll never follow the rules all the time, using the law
against them is one tactic for organizing resistance and creating more
space for education to occur. We have put together a supplement to our
Censorship Guide which focuses on the California ban, so write in to get
it if you’re being given this reason for censorship.
by a South Carolina prisoner November 2011 permalink
Peace, comrades in the struggle! First and foremost, the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC) is a modern day slave plantation. Being
political is a crime within itself; once I became aware of the truth
then the system considered me a threat. I’m a Black man in solitary
confinement due to my passion to stay alive, and I strive to use this
time to analyze my legal problems and how to continue to educate myself.
I write to this so-called law library to request certain law books and
other legal material, but I am denied because the law library is not up
to date and lacks current books we need. So I reached out to receive The
Georgetown Law Journal 2010 Edition from Georgetown Law. I was denied
permission to purchase that journal out of my own funds. Then I wrote to
Prison Legal News, South Chicago ABC Zine Distro, Justice Watch, Turning
the Tide, the Maoist Prison Cell, the National Lawyers Guild and the
Center for Constitutional Rights. All these organizations sent me
material but I was denied access to have the material and it was sent
back because of the so-called policies OP 22.12 and PS 10.08.
The SCDC has designated a ban on all magazines, newspapers, books,
photos, etc. that come from outside sources, whether it be from
publishing companies or organizations. In Special Management Unit, where
prisoners are housed 23 hours a day behind a locked door, SCDC mandates
all above material must come from its institutional library, whereupon
no newspapers or magazines are allowed, period. Only the inadequate
out-of-date law books and library books. Because of this ban many people
suffer from lack of information and educational and legal materials.
And the thing about it is the mailroom staff has a list of names of
publications that aren’t allowed to send mail to this institution. She
has no education in security besides searching mail for contraband.
I have limited information I can use to fight oppression as a whole. I
have offered my problems at the hands of my oppressor to hopefully serve
as a springboard for further war against oppression. Times do get
hectic, and recently I was placed in a full restraint chair off the
words of another prisoner’s statement! I am aware of some cases that
deal with censorship, so I’m doing my research the best way possible
even though the law books inside the library don’t have cases past 2001.
Of course I’m aware of the Prison Litigation Reform Act; that’s why I am
going through the grievance procedures now. I will continue fight this
system and hopefully my voice will be heard outside of these walls.
SCDC has no educational programs so it’s more about self-education, but
as you see I’m limited on that also. They have even started feeding
prisoners in here two meals on Saturday and Sunday due to so-called
budged cuts, but Monday through Friday we receive three meals per day.
This is a very hard battle but my will is to survive physically and
mentally until there’s no fighting left. I hope you can continue to send
me updated info because I can receive up to five pages of material
printed out like the Censorship Pack you recently sent. Thanks for your
support.
MIM(Prisons) Legal Coordinator adds: Since 2010, MIM Distributors
and South Carolina prisoners have been challenging the policy of “no
periodicals allowed on lock-up unit.” From our study of case law, we
don’t believe that this policy could withstand the scrutiny of the
higher courts, but to date all prisoncrats who have responded to our
letters have upheld the censorship and/or evaded our direct questioning.
SCDC is not the only prison administration that is more interested in
political repression than rehabilitation. Because national oppression is
the name of the game, all prisoncrats try to push the boundaries of
legality, and fortunately bourgeois democracy sometimes get in their
way. Regarding this particular type of repression, we have received
similar reports from prisoners held in North Carolina, California,
Connecticut, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.
It is a set-up for backwardness, which is the obvious goal: no
programming, no reading materials, and you are barely able to prepare a
lawsuit. They can’t actually expect prisoners to reform.
As a movement, we are held back by this censorship in South Carolina.
But rather than it defeating us, we should be inspired to push even
harder to spread ULK, the United Struggle from Within, and the
United Front for Peace in Prisons where we are able. Comrades affected
by censorship should file grievances and go to court if necessary, so
that conditions where they are don’t mirror South Carolina’s. Those with
legal knowledge should write in to get involved in the Prisoners’ Legal
Clinic.
I wish to apprise you of the recent censored mail to and from your area.
As you can probably recall, I promised to send you $20 off my books in
exchange for reading material back in August. Well that month has long
been left in our background.
I have attempted to get it processed from the start, yet finally it was
blocked for the so-called reason that MIM is banned. I find that hard to
believe because when you sent magazines and they were returned, the
Sergeant who spoke to me checked into it and specifically told me MIM
was not on the banned list. Still, in the documentation they refer to a
memo from 2006.
Furthermore, the Trust Officer told me that anything over $50 has to be
approved by Squad in advance. My donation was way below the $50 mark to
go to Squad, yet before responding back to my request, my Counselor
forwarded it to Squad. So yes, the Trust Office was just deflecting my
question.
In the recent events of hunger strikes I think these pigs are getting
petty and they are bringin up their repression tactics by stripping out
all property from those who participated. Sending you
money from my account seems to be out of the question for the time
being.
The policies regarding donations is actually simple. As it states in
Title 15 Section 3240.1 Donations, “Inmates may with permission of the
institution head make voluntary donations from their trust account funds
for any approved reason or cause. Permission shall be denied if any of
the following exist: (a) There is evidence of coercion. (b) The inmate’s
trust account balance is less than the amount of the proposed donation.
(c) The inmate is mentally incompetent. (d) The proposed amount of the
donation is less than one dollar. (e) The reason or cause advocated
could jeopardize facility security or the safety of persons.”
None of the above pertain to the case at hand. It is an illegal stretch
of the policy for this donation to be denied.
MIM(Prisons) Legal Coordinator adds: Recently, there has been
much discussion and some legal challenges to the law stating that
corporations are people with the rights to free speech in the form of
unlimited spending on political causes. Incidents like this beg the
question, are prisoners people? Do they have the rights promised to
people in U.$. law? The stories printed in ULK tend to support
the answer as “no.”
Regarding the alleged ban on MIM, on July 12, 2011, Appeals Examiner K.
J. Allen, an employee who investigates Director’s Level Appeals, stated
in an appeal decision to a prisoner,
“While Maoist International [sic] Movement publications were previously
disallowed based upon the direction of CDCR administration staff, the
publications are currently not listed on the Centralized List of
Disapproved Publications. Thus, a blanket denial on all such
publications is inappropriate, and the institution must process the
appellant’s mail in accordance with applicable departmental
rules/regulations.
“As with all publications, the appellant’s mailing must be reviewed and
evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with all departmental
regulations. Unless this specific Maoist International Movement
publication is considered contraband, as noted within the CCR 3006, the
publication shall be issued to the appellant and/or allowed to be
ordered and received.” (When citing this Director’s Level Appeal
Decision, it may be helpful to use IAB Case No. 1020001.)
The Director’s level is the top of the top within the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). A decision made at
the Director’s level would generally apply to all facilities and all
prisoners in the CDCR system. When the author of this article cited the
above Director’s Level Appeal Decision in defense of h donation to
MIM(Prisons), s/he was told to omit it from h grievance because it
“belongs to another inmate.” How a Director’s Level Decision simply
re-explaining and re-correcting a CDCR practice can “belong” to only one
prisoner is beyond reason.
In ULK 24 we put
a call out for donations to keep Under Lock & Key
functioning at its current capacity. When a prisoner is unable to send a
donation to MIM(Prisons), the prison administrators are limiting our
ability to publish and send out literature, thereby illegally limiting
our (and the donating prisoner’s) First Amendment right to free speech.
When they cite a defunct memorandum to limit donations, it is even more
egregious.
At least one persyn in the CDCR’s Director’s office made at least one
correct decision, at least once. We encourage our comrades to continue
grieving and re-grieving the defunct 2006 ban of MIM Distributors up to
the top, and take it to court if necessary. To help in this process,
we’ve put together a history of the ban with quotations for specific
facilities. We are sending out this Censorship Guide Supplement for
California to help prisoners hold administrators to their word. Write in
to get it.
I want to illuminate my thoughts regarding a “secret” Massachusetts DOC
policy that this state utilizes to hold us for long stretches in
solitary settings. We are frequently charged with violating a secret
regulation (103 DOC 514), yet we have no access, nor does the public, to
view this secret policy. The DOC expects us to abide by a regulation
that we are not allowed to read.
103 CMR 430 seeks to ensure fairness in the prison disciplinary system
by clearly defining and providing transparent notice of the procedures
by which disciplinary issues are handled. If the goal of 103 CMR 430 is
to promote order in the Massachusetts prison system and affect positive
change in prisoner behavior, the applicable regulations, and standards,
must be clear and readily available to the prisoners who are held
accountable for transgressing these behavioral benchmarks. If they are
not, the result on the prison population will be confusion, not
conformity. Prisoners cannot change their behavior to abide by a set of
regulations they are not allowed to view. We are owed due process under
the 14th Amendment, but due process is not being afforded to us.
In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 US 539 (1974), the Supreme Court
held that advanced written notice of regulations a prisoner is allegedly
violating is one of the minimum requirements of procedural due process.
Furthermore, a common person could only guess at what does or doesn’t
constitute engaging in STG activity. Charging us continuously with
STG-related offenses while denying us access to definitions of STG or
STG activity conflicts with the purpose of 103 CMR 430, and the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment. We must stand up and demand that
the Massachusetts DOC reveal this secret policy!