From the SF Bay View, August 31st, 2012
Writer’s name withheld
[photo: Prison authorities seem to fear any prisoner who writes for publication almost as much as they fear the world renowned prison writer George Jackson. The letter written to the Bay View by this prisoner was confiscated in July, despite Mutope Duguma’s victory in appeals court in June ordering Pelican Bay to release his letter to the Bay View on First Amendment grounds.]
Allow me this opportunity to wholeheartedly convey my appreciation for your commitment to being the voice of the forgotten and disenfranchised. Some inmates have been in this hell-hole for 20-plus years and had no means to raise their voices. This was the result of cowards unwilling to challenge CDCR and its powerful union, and it’s the courage that you’ve shown that has allowed us, as a collective, to realize we do have a voice, but only through unity. So I would commend you on your undying commitment and hard work.
The reason I’m writing this letter is to advise you and your loyal readers of the retaliation that Pelican Bay State Prison gang investigators have taken up against those of us inmates who chose to respond to your July 2012 issue, where one of your writers invited us to submit suggestions on how we PBSP SHU inmates should proceed in our “peaceful” protest against the new security threat group (STG) policy.
On July 22, 2012, I wrote a letter to you wanting to express my gratitude for the hard work that you do for us. In the letter I included my suggestion on how we should proceed in our opposition to the STG policy and asked if you would transcribe my suggestion in your next issue.
It’s the courage that you’ve shown that has allowed us, as a collective, to realize we do have a voice, but only through unity.
Two days later, I’m served with a serious rule violation charging me with “inciting a mass disturbance” (hunger strike). At the time I’m being issued this rule violation report, the officer is telling me that any attempts to associate with the SF Bay View will be met with punishment. The reporting officer, Institutional Gang Investigator (IGI) D. Milligan, confiscated the letter that I wrote to you, finding that I was attempting to submit the letter for no other purpose than inciting other inmates to participate in another hunger strike.
In an effort to retaliate against me for what they call “associate with SF Bay View,” the reporting officer purposely misconstrues my letter and takes my suggestion out of context. In fact, the charge that Officer Milligan is making against me couldn’t be any more contrary to the point I’m proposing.
First, I’m proposing that we respond to the STG policy by way of a “peaceful” protest. Peaceful, as I understand it, is defined as “without disturbance.” However, I’m being charged with inciting a mass disturbance. Second, I specifically address the point I’m trying to make in my suggestion. In doing so, I make clear how I feel that we have the better hand while the November election is in sight.
I explain, “There are ramifications for the government to keep us out of the media,” further suggesting that “we should not let them (CDCR) hold us off past the election.” I went on to propose that “we should start immediately where we left off with our last hunger strike – emphasis on where we left off.
In an effort to retaliate against me for what they call “associate with SF Bay View,” the reporting officer purposely misconstrues my letter and takes my suggestion out of context. In fact, the charge that Officer Milligan is making against me couldn’t be any more contrary to the point I’m proposing.
Now, in order for Officer Milligan’s charge against me to stand, the question turns on “where did we leave off.” The fact is “we” were never on a hunger strike. Although I received a rule violation for participating in a hunger strike, ultimately I was found not guilty, because that would require me having been a participant, which was never the case.
But that’s all beside the point. As my suggestion specifically notes, there are ramifications for the government to keep us out of the media, especially in light of the fact that there are elections in sight. “Where we left off with our last hunger strike” is we all agreed to do everything we can to expose the torturous conditions that we were “subjected to by way of reaching out to the media.”
This meant that we would write to newspaper companies and television broadcasting stations. Nowhere in my proposal am I attempting to incite a mass disturbance. Hence “peaceful” protest.
Now I’m writing in hopes that you can warn your subscribers of the retaliation being done to those of us who, as Officer Milligan put it, “associate with SF Bay View” and inform them not to be discouraged or dissuaded in our struggle to have our voices heard. I would consent to having you publish whatever is necessary in order for your readers to get an idea of the retaliation that has occurred here. However, I wish to remain unidentified in order to avoid further reprisal by prison officials including Officer Milligan.
Now I’m writing in hopes that you can warn your subscribers of the retaliation being done to those of us who, as Officer Milligan put it, “associate with SF Bay View” and inform them not to be discouraged or dissuaded in our struggle to have our voices heard.
Also I would ask that you help me obtain some legal counsel in order to explore some legal remedies, as it’s clear the actions by prison officials here violated my constitutional rights. Moreover, if I’m found guilty of the charges, I will lose my good time credits.
Thank you for your commitment and understanding.
Rules Violation Report
This is what Officer Milligan wrote in a Rules Violation Report dated July 24, 2012: “On Monday, July 23, 2012, at approximately 0830 hours, while assigned to the Institution Gang Investigations Unit (IGI), Investigative Services Unit (ISU), Officer #7, I received for review a one page letter authored by [identification withheld], currently housed in the Security Housing Unit (SHU), Facility D, Unit 9, [cell number withheld] at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP). The letter was dated July 20, 2012, and was addressed to the personnel of the publication of the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and its supporters, regarding a suggestion for a ‘hunger strike.’
“At the beginning of the letter [he] expressed his appreciation to the personnel at the San Francisco Bay View newspaper by complimenting them for being successful in assisting the inmate population housed in the SHU, at PBSP, and other institutions within the State of California, in helping bring ‘unity’ to all inmates who participated in the ‘hunger strike’ in July 2011, throughout the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). [He] also states in the second paragraph of the letter that he recently read the latest issue of the San Francisco Bay View newspaper (July 2012), and noticed a section authored by a “fellow inmate” (unidentified), housed in the SHU, at PBSP, who was asking for “suggestions and how to move forward with our peaceful protest” in opposition to the new Security Threat Group (STG) policy proposed by the CDCR and the new validation policies concerning gang management. [He] asks that his ‘suggestions’ be considered for publication in the next issue of the San Francisco Bay View newspaper. However, [he] asks that his name be withheld and remain anonymous, so not to draw attention to himself and avoid reprisals from CDCR staff. [He] ends the paragraph by asking that the following ‘suggestions’ be transcribed in the next issue of the San Francisco Bay View newspaper. (This is typed in italics verbatim as it was authored by [him]).
“’To all representatives of the peaceful protest against the new STG policy: I’m writing in response to the invitation to submit suggestions as to the next move we should take in our peaceful protest. I would propose that we not wait for the new policy to come out for the fact that we all know what the policy looks like and firmly reject it. I feel that we all have the better hand while the November election is in sight and there’s ramifications for the government to keep us out of the media, so we should not let them (CDCR) hold us off past the elections. Rather, we should start (immediately) where we left off with our last hunger strike, discontinue all negotiations with CDCR officials, make it clear that our protest is indefinite, meaning no date will be set as to when the peaceful protest ends, and make it clear that validated inmates shall not be housed in this (PBSP) SHU for long periods. Forever forward, D-9 Consensus.’”
“Based on my training and experience as a Correctional Officer, and after having reviewed the letter authored by [him], it is clearly evident that [he] is attempting to submit this letter and his ‘suggestions’ for no other purpose than inciting other inmates housed in the SHU, at PBSP and within the State of California, to participate in another ‘hunger strike’ which would ultimately lead to another mass disturbance similar to the ‘hunger strike’ experienced in July 2011, while remaining anonymous to avoid any reprisals. This behavior meets the criteria established in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Section 3005(a), Conduct, which states in part, ‘Inmates and parolees shall obey all laws, regulations, and local procedures and refrain from behavior which might lead to violence or disorder, or otherwise endangers facility, outside community or another person.’ (Attachment of letter provided).”
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Senate Passes Prison Media Access Bill
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 29, 2012
Contacts: Carlos Alcalá, Communications Director (916) 319-2013 or (916) 698-0243 cell
Emily Harris, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, (510) 435-1176
Senate Passes Prison Media Access Bill
Sacramento – The California Senate passed AB 1270 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano today, sending the bill on prison media openness to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature. The bill would restore the conditions that existed before 1996, the year that state corrections officials cut down on reporters’ ability to report directly on prison circumstances.
“We’re not just worried about reporters,” Ammiano said. “The lack of good information is also a danger to the prisoners, the employees and the public at large. It was under these closed-door conditions that prison health conditions deteriorated to the point that the courts stepped in. When it comes to prisons, what we don’t know can really hurt us.”
“California's prisons are notoriously off-limits to the kind of scrutiny that is routine for most public agencies,” the Los Angeles Times wrote in a recent editorial. The bill deserves the Governor’s signature, The Times wrote.
Under current procedures used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, journalists cannot request interviews with a particular prisoner to investigate conditions in the taxpayer funded facilities. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to investigate any events, such as the 2011 hunger strike in prisons.
Moreover, though, reporters may interview people in prisons who are selected by prison officials, there is no way to conduct follow-up interviews to those encounters, nor is there a way to check whether a prisoner has suffered any repercussions as a result of interviews.
"I hope that Governor Brown understands that lifting the media ban from our prisons can help victims like myself know what's going on behind prison walls, improve conditions of confinement and save tax payers money. We need to let the light in," said Shirley Wilson from the Youth Justice Coalition in Los Angeles. Wilson’s son was murdered and she now volunteers with youth who are at risk of being locked up.
"The public has the right to know how our tax dollars are being spent inside prisons,” said Jerry Elster, an organizer with All of Us or None. “If the state officials have nothing to hide then what's the problem with reporters having more access to people in prison?"
"With passage of AB 1270 legislators have voted for transparent and accountable reporting of the state's 32 prisons and the more than 130 prisoners locked inside their walls,” said Nancy Mullane, a prize-winning reporter and author on prisons. “With the governor's signature, no longer will professional, credentialed, hard-working journalists be forced to interview whichever inmate the prison authorities make available to them. For the first time in more than two decades, journalists will be permitted by law to request an interview with an inmate by name."
Following passage, the Governor has until September 30 to sign the measure.
The bill is supported by the California Catholic Conference, the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Newspaper Publisher Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, California Correctional Peace Officers Association and more than 20 other groups. It is sponsored by Californians United for a Responsible Budget, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, the Center for Young Women’s Development, the Friends Committee on Legislation of California and the Youth Justice Coalition.
###
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Duguma wins major court victory: Without a fight it can’t be no struggle
From: SF Bay View, Aug. 20th 2012
By by Mutope Duguma
We as New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist Freedom Fighters have won a major court victory toward throwing off the shackles of mental oppression. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco has ruled in a 3-0 decision that alleged members and associates of the New Afrikan revolutionary leftist organization titled the Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) and all New Afrikan prisoners have a First Amendment right to expression of their United States constitutional rights to speak to the New Afrikan nationalist revolutionary man ideology. The California Prison Intelligence Units (PIU), i.e., the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) and the Investigative Services Unit (IGI), have now been instructed to comply with the ruling by Justice James Lambden.
These are clearly our political beliefs, synonymous with the various ideological developments:
New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalism (NARN),
New Afrikan Nation (NAN),
New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man (NANRM),
Black Revolutionary Nationalism (BRN),
Revolutionary Nationalism (RN),
Black Nationalism,
New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist Freedom Fighter (NARNFF),
New Afrikan Ethnic Group (NAEG),
New Afrikan Revolutionary Guerrilla Nationalist Resistance Movement (NARGRM),
New Afrikan Socialist Man/Woman (NASMW).
They are stated in the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Case No. HCPB 10-5298, dated Dec. 26, 2010 and the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco’s Case No. A131276. Three justices ruled unanimously against Pelican Bay State Prison and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation personnel G.D. Lewis, K.L. McGuyer, J. Silveira, G. Wise, K.J. Allen and D. Foster.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco has ruled in a 3-0 decision that alleged members and associates of the New Afrikan revolutionary leftist organization titled The Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) and all New Afrikan prisoners have a First Amendment right to expression of their United States constitutional rights to speak to the New Afrikan nationalist revolutionary man ideology.
Yes, my Brothers and Sisters, we have only begun to struggle for our ideological beliefs on all fronts. Therefore, file your grievances, complaints and direct your claims to the state and federal courts forthwith!
Following is a declaration that I personally believe was very instrumental in winning this case due to James T. Campbell establishing clearly our New Afrikan struggle here in Amerika since 1619.
I can only hope that this ruling can allow the many New Afrikans throughout this nation, held in these prisons, general populations as well as solitary confinement torture units, to express our New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist ideology free of any attacks by overzealous prison intelligence units.
United we stand!
Mutope Duguma
Declaration of James T. Campbell
[photo: Stanford Professor James T. Campbell]
1. I am over 18 years of age and fully competent to make this declaration. I have personal knowledge of the matters described here unless otherwise noted.
2. I am currently the Edgar E. Robinson Professor in United States History at Stanford University. My research focuses on African American history and the wider history of the black Atlantic. I am particularly interested in African American intellectual and political history, including the long history of interconnections and exchange between Africa and America.
3. In my quarter century teaching at Stanford University, Brown University, Northwestern University, and the University of the Witwatersrand I have taught the following courses: Slavery and Freedom in American History; The Politics of Retrospective Justice; The Harlem Renaissance; History and Legacy of the Civil Rights Movement; The Life and Work of W.E.B. Du Bois; Celluloid America: History and Film; as well as survey courses in American and South African history. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
4. I was contacted by the Prison Law Office to review a letter dated April 11, 2010, written by James Crawford, along with some of his other writings. I was asked if I could determine whether the contents of the letter and, in particular, the terms “New Afrika” and “New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man” communicated genuine political ideas about Black Nationalism in the context of African American history, which is an area I have studied extensively.
5. After reviewing the letter carefully, I reached the conclusion that Mr. Crawford is rooted in a political tradition with deep roots in African American intellectual and political history, a tradition that stretches from the first African emigration movements in the era of the American Revolution, through the classical Black Nationalist tradition of the nineteenth century, and extending through the twentieth century in such incarnations as Marcus Garvey Universal Negro Improvement Association, the Black Panthers, and the Republic of New Afrika. The language that Mr. Crawford uses to communicate his ideas reflects a thorough immersion in and understanding of this history and ideological tradition.
6. Mr. Crawford’s use of the terms “New Afrika” and “New Afrikan” are consistent with the movement in the 1960s and 1970s to allow African Americans the right of self-determination to decide whether to form a Republic of New Afrika in the South. The Republic of New Afrika was one of the movements that popularized the usage of Afrika with a “k.”
7. As is characteristic of Black Nationalist thought in American history, Mr. Crawford’s letter does not appear to trace back to a single source but rather reflects a synthesis of a range of ideologies and movements stretching over the entirety of American history, with particular emphasis on the Black Nationalist movements of the 1960s and early 1970s.
8. Although I have no personal knowledge of what Mr. Crawford was trying to communicate in his April 11, 2010, letter apart from reading it, in my judgment he is a serious political thinker using terms such as “New Afrikan” and “New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man” that were ubiquitous in Black urban life in the 1960s and 1970s and that to my knowledge have no particular connection to prison gangs.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed July 3, 2011, in Palo Alto, California.
Mutope Duguma, a frequent contributor to the Bay View, is the author of “The call: Hunger strike to begin July 1,” “Pelican Bay SHU prisoners plan to resume hunger strike Sept. 26,” “We are willing to sacrifice ourselves to change our conditions,” “They took the 15 of us hunger strikers to ASU-Hell-Row,” “We’ve taken their power away by uniting as one,” “The solitary confinement profiteers“ and many more. Send our brother your congratulations and some love and light: Mutope Duguma (s/n James Crawford), D-05996, PBSP SHU D1-117, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City CA 95532.
By by Mutope Duguma
We as New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist Freedom Fighters have won a major court victory toward throwing off the shackles of mental oppression. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco has ruled in a 3-0 decision that alleged members and associates of the New Afrikan revolutionary leftist organization titled the Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) and all New Afrikan prisoners have a First Amendment right to expression of their United States constitutional rights to speak to the New Afrikan nationalist revolutionary man ideology. The California Prison Intelligence Units (PIU), i.e., the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) and the Investigative Services Unit (IGI), have now been instructed to comply with the ruling by Justice James Lambden.
These are clearly our political beliefs, synonymous with the various ideological developments:
New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalism (NARN),
New Afrikan Nation (NAN),
New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man (NANRM),
Black Revolutionary Nationalism (BRN),
Revolutionary Nationalism (RN),
Black Nationalism,
New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist Freedom Fighter (NARNFF),
New Afrikan Ethnic Group (NAEG),
New Afrikan Revolutionary Guerrilla Nationalist Resistance Movement (NARGRM),
New Afrikan Socialist Man/Woman (NASMW).
They are stated in the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Case No. HCPB 10-5298, dated Dec. 26, 2010 and the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco’s Case No. A131276. Three justices ruled unanimously against Pelican Bay State Prison and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation personnel G.D. Lewis, K.L. McGuyer, J. Silveira, G. Wise, K.J. Allen and D. Foster.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco has ruled in a 3-0 decision that alleged members and associates of the New Afrikan revolutionary leftist organization titled The Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) and all New Afrikan prisoners have a First Amendment right to expression of their United States constitutional rights to speak to the New Afrikan nationalist revolutionary man ideology.
Yes, my Brothers and Sisters, we have only begun to struggle for our ideological beliefs on all fronts. Therefore, file your grievances, complaints and direct your claims to the state and federal courts forthwith!
Following is a declaration that I personally believe was very instrumental in winning this case due to James T. Campbell establishing clearly our New Afrikan struggle here in Amerika since 1619.
I can only hope that this ruling can allow the many New Afrikans throughout this nation, held in these prisons, general populations as well as solitary confinement torture units, to express our New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist ideology free of any attacks by overzealous prison intelligence units.
United we stand!
Mutope Duguma
Declaration of James T. Campbell
[photo: Stanford Professor James T. Campbell]
1. I am over 18 years of age and fully competent to make this declaration. I have personal knowledge of the matters described here unless otherwise noted.
2. I am currently the Edgar E. Robinson Professor in United States History at Stanford University. My research focuses on African American history and the wider history of the black Atlantic. I am particularly interested in African American intellectual and political history, including the long history of interconnections and exchange between Africa and America.
3. In my quarter century teaching at Stanford University, Brown University, Northwestern University, and the University of the Witwatersrand I have taught the following courses: Slavery and Freedom in American History; The Politics of Retrospective Justice; The Harlem Renaissance; History and Legacy of the Civil Rights Movement; The Life and Work of W.E.B. Du Bois; Celluloid America: History and Film; as well as survey courses in American and South African history. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
4. I was contacted by the Prison Law Office to review a letter dated April 11, 2010, written by James Crawford, along with some of his other writings. I was asked if I could determine whether the contents of the letter and, in particular, the terms “New Afrika” and “New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man” communicated genuine political ideas about Black Nationalism in the context of African American history, which is an area I have studied extensively.
5. After reviewing the letter carefully, I reached the conclusion that Mr. Crawford is rooted in a political tradition with deep roots in African American intellectual and political history, a tradition that stretches from the first African emigration movements in the era of the American Revolution, through the classical Black Nationalist tradition of the nineteenth century, and extending through the twentieth century in such incarnations as Marcus Garvey Universal Negro Improvement Association, the Black Panthers, and the Republic of New Afrika. The language that Mr. Crawford uses to communicate his ideas reflects a thorough immersion in and understanding of this history and ideological tradition.
6. Mr. Crawford’s use of the terms “New Afrika” and “New Afrikan” are consistent with the movement in the 1960s and 1970s to allow African Americans the right of self-determination to decide whether to form a Republic of New Afrika in the South. The Republic of New Afrika was one of the movements that popularized the usage of Afrika with a “k.”
7. As is characteristic of Black Nationalist thought in American history, Mr. Crawford’s letter does not appear to trace back to a single source but rather reflects a synthesis of a range of ideologies and movements stretching over the entirety of American history, with particular emphasis on the Black Nationalist movements of the 1960s and early 1970s.
8. Although I have no personal knowledge of what Mr. Crawford was trying to communicate in his April 11, 2010, letter apart from reading it, in my judgment he is a serious political thinker using terms such as “New Afrikan” and “New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man” that were ubiquitous in Black urban life in the 1960s and 1970s and that to my knowledge have no particular connection to prison gangs.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed July 3, 2011, in Palo Alto, California.
Mutope Duguma, a frequent contributor to the Bay View, is the author of “The call: Hunger strike to begin July 1,” “Pelican Bay SHU prisoners plan to resume hunger strike Sept. 26,” “We are willing to sacrifice ourselves to change our conditions,” “They took the 15 of us hunger strikers to ASU-Hell-Row,” “We’ve taken their power away by uniting as one,” “The solitary confinement profiteers“ and many more. Send our brother your congratulations and some love and light: Mutope Duguma (s/n James Crawford), D-05996, PBSP SHU D1-117, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City CA 95532.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Stop the New Jail in San Mateo! Aug 25th and Sept 11th
Please circulate widely...
The San Mateo County supervisors have put forward a plan to add $44.2 million dollars to this year's budget for constructing a $160 million jail that we don't need-- and can't afford. We can stop it, but we need your help!
Please join us for two important upcoming events:
Community Townhall to Stop the New Jail
Saturday, August 25 - 1-4pm
&
ALL OUT: San Mateo Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, September 11 - 9am
Community Townhall to Stop the New Jail
Saturday, August 25 - 1-4pm
Free at Last
1796 Bay Road
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
RSVP: to the facebook event here!
Come to a community meeting to learn about the ongoing fight against the proposed jail expansion in San Mateo County. While San Mateo County slashes education, healthcare and other community services, it wants to spend $160 million to open new jail cells that will primarily be filled with people of color from poor and working class communities.
The event will include performances, testimony from former prisoners and family members, and local speakers sharing strategies on how to fight the jail and stop cuts to the programs that matter most. Join with neighbors and local community organizations to stop the jail!
BBQ lunch will be served. The space is wheelchair accessible.
ALL OUT: San Mateo Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, September 11 - 9am
Board Chambers 400 County Center, First Floor Redwood City, CA 94063
RSVP: to the facebook event here!
On September 11th, we're going to demand that San Mateo's Supervisors cancel the jail, starting with the 44.2 million dollars in this year's budget. We need to turn out in full force--that means not just you, but your neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers. We need you to start talking to people on your block, at your church, and in your classrooms. We can stop the County from locking up so many people and wasting so much money, but we need your help.
Come speak out against the jail construction plan!
Organized by Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) member organizations and allies: All of Us or None, ACLU of Northern California, Architects / Designers / Planners / for Social Responsibility, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Critical Resistance, Justice Now, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and Occupy Redwood City.
CURB is a statewide alliance of over 50 organizations working to curb prison spending by reducing the number of people in prison and the number of prisons in California.
For more information: 510-435-1176 - info@curbprisonspending.org - www.curbprisonspending.org
The San Mateo County supervisors have put forward a plan to add $44.2 million dollars to this year's budget for constructing a $160 million jail that we don't need-- and can't afford. We can stop it, but we need your help!
Please join us for two important upcoming events:
Community Townhall to Stop the New Jail
Saturday, August 25 - 1-4pm
&
ALL OUT: San Mateo Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, September 11 - 9am
Community Townhall to Stop the New Jail
Saturday, August 25 - 1-4pm
Free at Last
1796 Bay Road
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
RSVP: to the facebook event here!
Come to a community meeting to learn about the ongoing fight against the proposed jail expansion in San Mateo County. While San Mateo County slashes education, healthcare and other community services, it wants to spend $160 million to open new jail cells that will primarily be filled with people of color from poor and working class communities.
The event will include performances, testimony from former prisoners and family members, and local speakers sharing strategies on how to fight the jail and stop cuts to the programs that matter most. Join with neighbors and local community organizations to stop the jail!
BBQ lunch will be served. The space is wheelchair accessible.
ALL OUT: San Mateo Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, September 11 - 9am
Board Chambers 400 County Center, First Floor Redwood City, CA 94063
RSVP: to the facebook event here!
On September 11th, we're going to demand that San Mateo's Supervisors cancel the jail, starting with the 44.2 million dollars in this year's budget. We need to turn out in full force--that means not just you, but your neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers. We need you to start talking to people on your block, at your church, and in your classrooms. We can stop the County from locking up so many people and wasting so much money, but we need your help.
Come speak out against the jail construction plan!
Organized by Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) member organizations and allies: All of Us or None, ACLU of Northern California, Architects / Designers / Planners / for Social Responsibility, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Critical Resistance, Justice Now, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and Occupy Redwood City.
CURB is a statewide alliance of over 50 organizations working to curb prison spending by reducing the number of people in prison and the number of prisons in California.
For more information: 510-435-1176 - info@curbprisonspending.org - www.curbprisonspending.org
Monday, August 20, 2012
California prisons to stay tortuously overcrowded
From Russia Today (RT):
August 14th 2012
Prison officials in California have a problem with overcrowded institutions, but it isn’t what you might think: unable to keep their facilities under 137.5 percent capacity, corrections officers in Cali are asking for an increase in that cap.
California authorities have had more than a year now to try and find a solution to fix the state’s booming prison population, but as of this week say that they don’t expect to end an issue with overcrowding until even well into 2013.
In May of 2011, the US Supreme Court said that overcrowding was such an issue in California that the conditions prisoners were being subjected to there were on par with “cruel and unusual punishment.” At the time, the Supreme Court said California had two years to come to terms with the problem and ensure that all institutions on the Golden Coast were kept under 137.5 percent capacity. State officials now say that such a goal is unlikely — even with another year until their deadline — but a federal court says they want to see what is being done to address the problem.
In a last-ditch attempt to end its overcrowding problem, a panel of three federal judges say California has until this Friday to figure out which of its prisoners are "unlikely to re-offend or who might otherwise be candidates for early release,” the Los Angeles Times reports.
The federal judges want California leaders to outline a plan this week to put less harmful prisoners back on the streets as a way of opening up its jail cells. Prison officials say that they plan on offering up a proposal of their own that keeps them close-to-quota without releasing anyone, though: according to the Times, state officials intend on asking the high court for a prison cap of 145 percent, not the current 137.5, because they believe that they can keep their facilities running efficiently and still to the brim with inmates — even nearly 50 percent more than what their buildings are designed to hold.
"Reducing the inmate population is not the goal of the court," corrections agency spokesman Bill Sessa tells the paper. "It is a means to an end, which is providing better healthcare that was compromised by overcrowding."
Mr. Sessa adds to the Times that the state’s healthcare woes will be remediated, at least a little, when a 1,700-bed facilities is opened in Stockton next year, a city that recently was forced to file for bankruptcy protection. But even with that new institution opening up in 2013, a population cap of 145 percent means prison officials want to cram around 118,000 inmates into spaces intended for 81,500.
Read the rest here.
August 14th 2012
Prison officials in California have a problem with overcrowded institutions, but it isn’t what you might think: unable to keep their facilities under 137.5 percent capacity, corrections officers in Cali are asking for an increase in that cap.
California authorities have had more than a year now to try and find a solution to fix the state’s booming prison population, but as of this week say that they don’t expect to end an issue with overcrowding until even well into 2013.
In May of 2011, the US Supreme Court said that overcrowding was such an issue in California that the conditions prisoners were being subjected to there were on par with “cruel and unusual punishment.” At the time, the Supreme Court said California had two years to come to terms with the problem and ensure that all institutions on the Golden Coast were kept under 137.5 percent capacity. State officials now say that such a goal is unlikely — even with another year until their deadline — but a federal court says they want to see what is being done to address the problem.
In a last-ditch attempt to end its overcrowding problem, a panel of three federal judges say California has until this Friday to figure out which of its prisoners are "unlikely to re-offend or who might otherwise be candidates for early release,” the Los Angeles Times reports.
The federal judges want California leaders to outline a plan this week to put less harmful prisoners back on the streets as a way of opening up its jail cells. Prison officials say that they plan on offering up a proposal of their own that keeps them close-to-quota without releasing anyone, though: according to the Times, state officials intend on asking the high court for a prison cap of 145 percent, not the current 137.5, because they believe that they can keep their facilities running efficiently and still to the brim with inmates — even nearly 50 percent more than what their buildings are designed to hold.
"Reducing the inmate population is not the goal of the court," corrections agency spokesman Bill Sessa tells the paper. "It is a means to an end, which is providing better healthcare that was compromised by overcrowding."
Mr. Sessa adds to the Times that the state’s healthcare woes will be remediated, at least a little, when a 1,700-bed facilities is opened in Stockton next year, a city that recently was forced to file for bankruptcy protection. But even with that new institution opening up in 2013, a population cap of 145 percent means prison officials want to cram around 118,000 inmates into spaces intended for 81,500.
Read the rest here.
Statement sent from the men at Corcoran SHU & ASU
Received per email Aug. 16th:
"Greetings, July 24, 2012
We’ve read several of your articles, each one more inspiring then the other… and even though our struggle is far from over, we remain 100%! And grateful for the support of our friends, families and loved ones such as yourself.
It’s an understatement to describe how sacrificing our meals was hard in both hunger strikes last year. Though this validation policy affects us in the SHU/ASUs. It was great seeing how many mainlines also stood up in solidarity, recognizing the harsh dubious and arbitrary CDC policy that has and will affect them in a matter of time. So it leaves one to ask… why not deny the state annual TB testing? Since CDC has already demonstrated not caring for our mental health (health care in its entirety) and well-being. CDC cherry-picks which policies they will enforce and which inmates will be allowed work, school and other trades of productivity. So what happens if everyone refuses to program/work?
Next issue is bed space. For example, here in the SHU/ASU. IGI has been purposely housing debriefers in the same vicinity as validated inmates, in attempt for those debriefers to gather info. However, since these attempts are far from effective. Instead, these debriefers “make up” info (exaggerate) which enables IGI to keep us in the SHU indefinitely. And causes others to be placed on single cell status (for what IGI calls ‘safety concerns’). Thus, CDC time and again harps how bed space is needed. Solely to sponge more money from tax payers. So what if every inmate decided one day to go single cell? Another hunger strike? Whatever is agreed upon, we stand in solidarity with respect!
Andy Rodriguez, CDC# D-89239, Corcoran State Prison SHU
Written on 7-24-2012 to Kendra Castaneda, Postmarked July 27 2012 and transcribed by Kendra Castaneda
"Greetings, July 24, 2012
We’ve read several of your articles, each one more inspiring then the other… and even though our struggle is far from over, we remain 100%! And grateful for the support of our friends, families and loved ones such as yourself.
It’s an understatement to describe how sacrificing our meals was hard in both hunger strikes last year. Though this validation policy affects us in the SHU/ASUs. It was great seeing how many mainlines also stood up in solidarity, recognizing the harsh dubious and arbitrary CDC policy that has and will affect them in a matter of time. So it leaves one to ask… why not deny the state annual TB testing? Since CDC has already demonstrated not caring for our mental health (health care in its entirety) and well-being. CDC cherry-picks which policies they will enforce and which inmates will be allowed work, school and other trades of productivity. So what happens if everyone refuses to program/work?
Next issue is bed space. For example, here in the SHU/ASU. IGI has been purposely housing debriefers in the same vicinity as validated inmates, in attempt for those debriefers to gather info. However, since these attempts are far from effective. Instead, these debriefers “make up” info (exaggerate) which enables IGI to keep us in the SHU indefinitely. And causes others to be placed on single cell status (for what IGI calls ‘safety concerns’). Thus, CDC time and again harps how bed space is needed. Solely to sponge more money from tax payers. So what if every inmate decided one day to go single cell? Another hunger strike? Whatever is agreed upon, we stand in solidarity with respect!
Andy Rodriguez, CDC# D-89239, Corcoran State Prison SHU
Written on 7-24-2012 to Kendra Castaneda, Postmarked July 27 2012 and transcribed by Kendra Castaneda
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Film: Attica showing on Sept 12th in SF
Wed. Sept. 12, 7pm
2969 Mission St. at 26th, SF (near 24th St. BART)
Film Showing
“Attica”
a film by Cinda Firestone
With discussion of the recent California prisoner hunger strikes and the history of struggle for prisoner rights.
Social unrest in the United States hit a boiling point on September 9, 1971, when inmates at Attica State Prison—after months of protesting inhumane living conditions—revolted, seizing part of the prison and taking 35 hostages. The uprising resulted in the death of 43 people after troopers were called in to suppress the rioters.
Three years later, Cinda Firestone released this monumental investigation of the rebellion and its aftermath, piecing together documentary footage of the occupation and ensuing assault with video from the McKay Commission hearings that criticized Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller’s handling of the incident and firsthand interviews with prisoners discharged after the event.
Unavailable for 33 years, Attica still is a sobering and revealing look into the heart of American justice, weighing the costs of institutional dishonesty and abuses of power against the price some will pay to retain human dignity. — www.atticathefilm.com (1974)
$5-10 donation (no one turned away for lack of funds)
Wheelchair accessible. Refreshments provided.
Sponsored by ANSWER Coalition.
More info: 415-821-6545, www.ANSWERsf.org
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Open Letter: Calipatria ASU/IGI Duarte promoted to work ASU now
“I would like to shed some light regarding my time I have come across with Institutional Gang Investigator (IGI) E. Duarte! My name is German Cabrera, CDC# T-50054; I’ve been in ASU (Administrative Segregation Unit) since 10/26/2009. I am currently validated as an alleged associate of a prison gang and I did have a discussion with IGI E. Duarte prior to being placed in the hole (segregation).
That bad day took place on 5/14/2009, IGI E. Duarte and his Sergeant forced me to sign what’s called a “safety chrono”, when I refused to do so I was threatened to be placed in the hole. How it took place was as follows: On 5/14/2009 after taking my work shower at my return from my vocation assignment (job) and yard was recalled completely in (B5), I was walking out of the shower and I noticed a sergeant just looking at me. He didn’t say anything though I did not have 5 minutes in my cell when my cell door reopened and was told by the tower that I had a 115 hearing in the program office.
I told him to close my door, didn’t think he was serious. So he did but just to reopen it and said “they want you to go to the program office for a 115.” I asked who is they? He replied “the Sergeant”. I replied to him that the Sgt. was just here and did not say anything plus the Sergeants don’t hear 115’s, it’s the Lieutenants that do plus I didn’t have any 115s. I told him to close my door, he (Duarte) insisted but ended up closing it.
Seconds later the floor officer came and said “they wanted me to cuff you and take you to the office.” I asked “do you know who?” He replied “you know who it is!” Then he went ahead to say “but I’m out of it.” So I told him “get out of it then and get away from my cell door.” He did and minutes later I heard squad’s arrival, it was around 5 or 10 of them. When I got closer to my door and looked it was an officer heading towards my cell door real fast, when he arrived his name tag said “E Duarte”. Duarte started to get loud stating “you like attention huh”, “you like attention huh”, “okay I’m going to give you attention.” I told him “I don’t even know who he is for him to get crazy with me”. He ended up cuffing us up while cuffed up and out of the cell he was acting dumb with my cellie trying to intimidate him.
Then I was told I needed to sign something and I asked what it was; it was a “safety chrono”. I stated to them “I’m cool.” Duarte said “if you don’t sign it you’re going to the hole (segregation).” Then it was given to IGI Tamayo who read it, I then asked him “this is what you’re using to remove me from General Population?” I asked because they did so with another inmate in my building. IGI Tamayo said “oh you’ll know when I’d come for you”. I got into a little discussion of how come they can’t just take my word that I have no issues (safety concerns) and I don’t know what’s really behind this chrono because it doesn’t say if and how it was proven to be true or reliable. So in reality I don’t know (what) and (why) I’m signing then (IGI Sgt. E. Silva) jumped in saying to chill out that I do need to sign it or they will place me in the hole (ASU).
I ended up signing because I had a lot going, I was in vocational training – AA classes – in cell studies plus earning good time credits and I remained in B yard for 5 ½ months until the incident involving inmates and c/o’s in B-2. The incident with Velarde (Harold Anthony Velarde vs. E. Duarte court case in the United States District Court Southern District Of California) and the c/o that hit the inmate while he was cuffed after the searches, me and other Mexicans/Latinos/Hispanics were placed in Adseg/Holes! I got targeted in this validated process, asserted and refuted the following:
I was picked up by IGI pending an investigation into alleged association(s) with a prison gang and as an alleged active member of street gang/disruptive group. I refute IGI’s source items used against me in this duo-validation individual and collectively and assert that this malicious targeting was done in retribution and revenge for the prior incident involving myself and IGI Duarte in which Duarte exhibited a hostile nature and unnecessary forced me to sign a “safety chrono” as well as a subsequent incident involving Mexicans/Latinos/Hispanics and I assert that Duarte’s unnecessary forcing was a personal attack on my character and positive programming in this institution. A fact supporting Duarte’s use of invalid information given by inmates seeking protective custody is illuminated by me remaining on B-yard General Population, several months with no incident; expounding on this doubly damning attack on my character.
I have been targeted and harassed on numerous occasions proceeding this validation process and in violation of my due process rights, due solely to my appearance (as stated by IGI Duarte who while handing me my street gang/disruptive group validation packet sneered at me stating “you got it all over your face”, pointing to my facial area responding to my surprised utterance.”)
They’re using my past against me in addition to IGI Tamayo’s alleged interview where he states I self-admitted to being a gang member. That is a complete fabrication of the events of such day and the abuse of power and malicious harassment of IGI’s.
I have suffered these unconstitutional harassments specifically at the hands of IGI E. Duarte, IGI Tamayo, IGI Silva with a certain number of searches occurring after facility searches or returning from OTC (out of court) 5/2008. With specific reference to incidents such as the constant search and seizure of property with no real provocation, no probable cause, and never yielding any contraband directly related to any association either gang or prison gang. Also, malicious acts such as derogatory practices of withholding my outgoing mail and disallowing my incoming mail as its unconstitutional and puts a strain on my family relationships.
In 2009 I was given the street gang packet and was made to believe it was going to be submitted so both packets gave me (11 points) to rebuttal. Knowing how they go about their evil ways:
1) Because when Duarte and Tamayo came to pick them up, as soon as he got in front of my door I slid them my arguments and they stated “you’re done?” looking all surprised. Plus when they left to do the copies they are obligated to give me, the copies were purposely made wrong!
2) All those points were obviously given to me all at once in hopes I get stressed out and not be capable to rebuttal nor do it correctly.
3) They, IGI’s were hiding my property because most of property consists of legal books, case law, and coincidently I had (validation manual) when I made it clear to all involved (officers and officials) how I was not going to allow their criminal tactics to be pushed on me, without a fight on my behalf. They all told me IGI has to have it. Then like magic my property appeared but days before I was officially validated by Sacramento.
I have several appeals/602’s and staff complaints against IGI and ISU as a whole as well as several of them as individuals. But I was expected of them to respond that their c/o’s did nothing wrong, it doesn’t matter to me because I preserved my rights doing so.
Before I bring this to a close, just recently I was served again with the street gang/disruptive group just because I requested for the face sheet of that packet out of my central file (C-file) so they retaliated and reserved me. On my interview for it, I came out and IGI Duarte was there, I made it clear what was he doing there if I have a staff complaint on him and this past Monday when I went out for medical within the facility I ran into IGI E. Duarte he was the Sergeant for that day. Yup, he’s a Sergeant now, he was the last one of the squad (corrupted) that placed most of all of us in ASU and he will be working in ASU a couple of days out of the week!
I know for a fact there’s a lot of merit in appeals/602’s and complaints filed against Duarte. How is it that he got promoted and on top of that work where inmates he conspired against are housed where he physically hurt an inmate. People out there should request to be provided documents specific to what are the requirements for a c/o (correctional officer) to become a Sergeant and what disqualifies a c/o from getting promoted becoming a Sergeant?
“Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor” - Ginetta Sagan
Cordially,
German Cabrera
CDC# T-50054
Calipatria State Prison ASU
Written on 8/9/2012, postmarked on 8/10/2012 to Kendra Castaneda and transcribed on 8/14/2012
That bad day took place on 5/14/2009, IGI E. Duarte and his Sergeant forced me to sign what’s called a “safety chrono”, when I refused to do so I was threatened to be placed in the hole. How it took place was as follows: On 5/14/2009 after taking my work shower at my return from my vocation assignment (job) and yard was recalled completely in (B5), I was walking out of the shower and I noticed a sergeant just looking at me. He didn’t say anything though I did not have 5 minutes in my cell when my cell door reopened and was told by the tower that I had a 115 hearing in the program office.
I told him to close my door, didn’t think he was serious. So he did but just to reopen it and said “they want you to go to the program office for a 115.” I asked who is they? He replied “the Sergeant”. I replied to him that the Sgt. was just here and did not say anything plus the Sergeants don’t hear 115’s, it’s the Lieutenants that do plus I didn’t have any 115s. I told him to close my door, he (Duarte) insisted but ended up closing it.
Seconds later the floor officer came and said “they wanted me to cuff you and take you to the office.” I asked “do you know who?” He replied “you know who it is!” Then he went ahead to say “but I’m out of it.” So I told him “get out of it then and get away from my cell door.” He did and minutes later I heard squad’s arrival, it was around 5 or 10 of them. When I got closer to my door and looked it was an officer heading towards my cell door real fast, when he arrived his name tag said “E Duarte”. Duarte started to get loud stating “you like attention huh”, “you like attention huh”, “okay I’m going to give you attention.” I told him “I don’t even know who he is for him to get crazy with me”. He ended up cuffing us up while cuffed up and out of the cell he was acting dumb with my cellie trying to intimidate him.
Then I was told I needed to sign something and I asked what it was; it was a “safety chrono”. I stated to them “I’m cool.” Duarte said “if you don’t sign it you’re going to the hole (segregation).” Then it was given to IGI Tamayo who read it, I then asked him “this is what you’re using to remove me from General Population?” I asked because they did so with another inmate in my building. IGI Tamayo said “oh you’ll know when I’d come for you”. I got into a little discussion of how come they can’t just take my word that I have no issues (safety concerns) and I don’t know what’s really behind this chrono because it doesn’t say if and how it was proven to be true or reliable. So in reality I don’t know (what) and (why) I’m signing then (IGI Sgt. E. Silva) jumped in saying to chill out that I do need to sign it or they will place me in the hole (ASU).
I ended up signing because I had a lot going, I was in vocational training – AA classes – in cell studies plus earning good time credits and I remained in B yard for 5 ½ months until the incident involving inmates and c/o’s in B-2. The incident with Velarde (Harold Anthony Velarde vs. E. Duarte court case in the United States District Court Southern District Of California) and the c/o that hit the inmate while he was cuffed after the searches, me and other Mexicans/Latinos/Hispanics were placed in Adseg/Holes! I got targeted in this validated process, asserted and refuted the following:
I was picked up by IGI pending an investigation into alleged association(s) with a prison gang and as an alleged active member of street gang/disruptive group. I refute IGI’s source items used against me in this duo-validation individual and collectively and assert that this malicious targeting was done in retribution and revenge for the prior incident involving myself and IGI Duarte in which Duarte exhibited a hostile nature and unnecessary forced me to sign a “safety chrono” as well as a subsequent incident involving Mexicans/Latinos/Hispanics and I assert that Duarte’s unnecessary forcing was a personal attack on my character and positive programming in this institution. A fact supporting Duarte’s use of invalid information given by inmates seeking protective custody is illuminated by me remaining on B-yard General Population, several months with no incident; expounding on this doubly damning attack on my character.
I have been targeted and harassed on numerous occasions proceeding this validation process and in violation of my due process rights, due solely to my appearance (as stated by IGI Duarte who while handing me my street gang/disruptive group validation packet sneered at me stating “you got it all over your face”, pointing to my facial area responding to my surprised utterance.”)
They’re using my past against me in addition to IGI Tamayo’s alleged interview where he states I self-admitted to being a gang member. That is a complete fabrication of the events of such day and the abuse of power and malicious harassment of IGI’s.
I have suffered these unconstitutional harassments specifically at the hands of IGI E. Duarte, IGI Tamayo, IGI Silva with a certain number of searches occurring after facility searches or returning from OTC (out of court) 5/2008. With specific reference to incidents such as the constant search and seizure of property with no real provocation, no probable cause, and never yielding any contraband directly related to any association either gang or prison gang. Also, malicious acts such as derogatory practices of withholding my outgoing mail and disallowing my incoming mail as its unconstitutional and puts a strain on my family relationships.
In 2009 I was given the street gang packet and was made to believe it was going to be submitted so both packets gave me (11 points) to rebuttal. Knowing how they go about their evil ways:
1) Because when Duarte and Tamayo came to pick them up, as soon as he got in front of my door I slid them my arguments and they stated “you’re done?” looking all surprised. Plus when they left to do the copies they are obligated to give me, the copies were purposely made wrong!
2) All those points were obviously given to me all at once in hopes I get stressed out and not be capable to rebuttal nor do it correctly.
3) They, IGI’s were hiding my property because most of property consists of legal books, case law, and coincidently I had (validation manual) when I made it clear to all involved (officers and officials) how I was not going to allow their criminal tactics to be pushed on me, without a fight on my behalf. They all told me IGI has to have it. Then like magic my property appeared but days before I was officially validated by Sacramento.
I have several appeals/602’s and staff complaints against IGI and ISU as a whole as well as several of them as individuals. But I was expected of them to respond that their c/o’s did nothing wrong, it doesn’t matter to me because I preserved my rights doing so.
Before I bring this to a close, just recently I was served again with the street gang/disruptive group just because I requested for the face sheet of that packet out of my central file (C-file) so they retaliated and reserved me. On my interview for it, I came out and IGI Duarte was there, I made it clear what was he doing there if I have a staff complaint on him and this past Monday when I went out for medical within the facility I ran into IGI E. Duarte he was the Sergeant for that day. Yup, he’s a Sergeant now, he was the last one of the squad (corrupted) that placed most of all of us in ASU and he will be working in ASU a couple of days out of the week!
I know for a fact there’s a lot of merit in appeals/602’s and complaints filed against Duarte. How is it that he got promoted and on top of that work where inmates he conspired against are housed where he physically hurt an inmate. People out there should request to be provided documents specific to what are the requirements for a c/o (correctional officer) to become a Sergeant and what disqualifies a c/o from getting promoted becoming a Sergeant?
“Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor” - Ginetta Sagan
Cordially,
German Cabrera
CDC# T-50054
Calipatria State Prison ASU
Written on 8/9/2012, postmarked on 8/10/2012 to Kendra Castaneda and transcribed on 8/14/2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
One Year After Historic Hunger Strike, Isolated California Prisoners Report Little Change
From: Solitarywatch, by Sal Rodriguez, Aug. 6th 2012:
At this time one year ago, a three week hunger strike across California prisons had been concluded, and the California Assembly had begun planning a hearing on the use of solitary confinement in California’s prisons. The conditions of the California Security Housing Units, where over 3,000 inmates are held in isolation, many for decades, had come to the public’s attention. In the time since August 2011, there would be another round of three week hunger strikes, a smaller series of hunger strikes at the Corcoran Administrative Segregation Unit, a new “Step Down Program” announced in California, a federal lawsuit filed by Pelican Bay SHU inmates, and a US Senate hearing on solitary confinement.
Even so, the situation in the SHUs and ASUs remains much as it did one year ago. A few concessions by prison officials, such as issuing sweatpants and allowing family photos, did nothing to change the problem of long-term isolation and non-existent due process.
It should be reiterated that in California, the majority of SHU inmates are not necessarily there for conduct, but for gang membership.
In a letter to California activists, Pelican Bay hunger strike leader Alfred Sandoval reports feeling like “just banging my head against the wall because nothing ever changes around here. Right now the Department of Corruption and the current administration have been attempting to pacify prisoners with items…ie. sweats, watch caps, and various food items from canteen–in hopes of distracting us …”
He continues, “the sad fact is that some have been complacent and accepted the physical and psychological abuses as normal because it has been implemented in small increments over decades, year after year so it has become the norm.”
Isolated inmates throughout California continue to report desolate conditions and more-of-the-same.
According to one inmate in the Corcoran State Prison SHU, “The reality is there is a significant number of us for whom death holds no real fear, in fact, in some ways—as an alternative to another few decades of this—it holds some appeal. If it becomes necessary to take up peaceful protest again—and it’s unfortunately looking that way—you may be writing a lot more Christian Gomez articles…Most here only want to, after so very long, hold their children, kiss their wives, speak to their families, and have access to some meaningful program that will give them some hope of parole, higher education, and marketable job skills. But all of this is indicative of a sick society, of values and mores that have never been seriously and confronted and corrected in the history of U.S. social, political, and economic development.”
Christian Gomez was an inmate in Corcoran State Prison’s ASU who died while participating in a January-Feburary hunger strike protesting the conditions of the ASU.
One of the leaders of the Corcoran ASU strike, Juan Jaimes, was transfered during the strike to Kern Valley State Prison’s ASU unit as a means of limiting the strike. Jaimes recently reported to the San Francisco Bay View that he has received poor medical care for a broken back.
Read the rest here:
http://solitarywatch.com/2012/08/06/one-year-after-historic-hunger-strike-isolated-ca-inmates-report-little-change/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Read it!
Solitary Watch
Nevada Prison Watch
Pelican Bay Hunger Strike Solidarity