Kambon, Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa, Abdul Olugbala Shakur, Sondai Kamdibe Dumisani,
Mutope Duguma and Abasi Ganda
For the past two years
we’ve heard the state claim it’s reforming its long term segregation policies
and practices by implementing a Security Threat Group (STG) Step Down Program
(SDP). Officials claim the program is a significant move towards a more
behavior-based system, yet they remain extraordinarily vague about the
“ultimate conclusion.” What exactly is “gang activity”?
The state’s motives are and
always have been about the targeting and creation of informants, snitches and
other low lifes for the sole purpose of creating a population of prisoners who
mindlessly operate against their own interest to the benefit of the state.
|This powerful drawing, “Step Down Program” by F. Bermudez, was enclosed with this statement by the writers.|
state, rehabilitation means rat, because the only way to ensure that the
targeted population or prisoner is no longer a threat is by their willingness
to inform or lie. The state is not concerned whether or not you know anything;
all they are concerned with is whether you are willing to inform.
We are dealing with an
entrenched mindset. State officials have created their own paranoia with the
sheer sensationalization of the unproven, unchallenged reports they fabricate
in order to justify keeping hundreds of us confined to control units
It’s important to
understand that prisoners are by way of the 13th Amendment slaves and are
essentially dealt with as such by the courts and state officials who have
essentially unchecked authority to treat prisoners as they see fit with very
minor limitations. The 13th Amendment says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
Folks tend to underestimate
the wording of this amendment. We tend to think and/or are conditioned to think
that slavery is over. It’s important to reflect upon this because it places
into context the role that the judicial branch – the courts – have played in
permitting this 148-year experiment to continue.
We need not look far to see
that in the history of this nation there were no rules governing the operation
of a prison. Those matters were left to the absolute discretion of the warden.
With the emergence of the
prison movement in the 1960s, prisoners began to win some important rights. The
United States Supreme Court decided two very important good cases in this
regard: Monroe v. Pape, 365 US 167 (1961), and Cooper v. Pate, 378 US 546
These cases transformed
Section 1983 into an extremely valuable tool for state prisoners. [Section 1983 is today the most important provision of the
Reconstruction-era Klan Act, originally meant to protect Black voting rights.
After Reconstruction, the 1871 law fell into disuse for nearly 100 years. It
makes relief – in the form of money damages – available to those whose
constitutional rights have been violated by someone acting under state
authority, such as a prison guard, and the statute is most often used today by
prisoners. – ed.]
Powerful, racially united
strikes and rebellions shook Folsom Prison, San Quentin, Attica and other
prisons throughout the country during the early 1970s. These rebellions brought
the terrible conditions of prisoners into the public eye and had some positive
effects on the way federal courts dealt with prisoners.
Prisoners won important
federal court rulings on living conditions, access to the media, and procedures
and methods of discipline, such as the right to some due process before being
placed in disciplinary segregation (Wolff v. McDonald, Cluchette v. Procunier,
Wright v. Enomoto), the right to send and receive letters (Procunier v.
Martinez), and the “Prisoner’s Bill of Rights,” which guaranteed prisoners a
measure of human decency. Accordingly, prisoners won the right to access the
court (Bounds v. Smith) and the right to outdoor exercise (Spain v. Procunier).
These were pre-validation
rulings and were high on the target list of Supreme Court Justice William H.
Rehnquist, an extremely activist judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan in
1986. President Richard M. Nixon had first attempted to appoint Rehnquist in
the 1970s, having been furious with what he felt was a liberal Supreme Court
granting citizens Miranda Rights and the right to be represented by counsel at
Rehnquist, like Clarence
Thomas and Antonin Scalia today, does not believe that the constitution applies
to prisoners. Rehnquist openly questioned whether the constitution afforded
prisoners the right to access a court or whether the state should be required
to inform arrested citizens about their right to remain silent.
In the meantime, prison
officials invested a lot of capital in their scheme to divide and conquer,
fomenting violence, pitting prisoners against each other and effectively
stifling the political influence that the 1960s era of “progress and struggle”
had on the concentration camps, giving rise to the era of “roll back and
repeal” and “gang validations” under the guise of fighting gang activity.
Rehnquist, like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia
today, does not believe that the constitution applies to prisoners.
Unfortunately, the federal
courts did not stay receptive to prisoner’s struggles for long. In 1996,
Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed into the law the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA). The PLRA is extremely anti-prisoner and designed to limit
prisoners’ access to federal courts, legally permitting discrimination against
a specific class of individuals: prisoners. The PLRA has given rise to what is
known as judicial deference – deferring to the judgment of prison officials –
in matters of prison management.
This analysis was
brilliantly articulated in an article in the January issue of Prison Legal News
(PLN) by Sharon Dolovich entitled, “Forms of Judicial Deference in
Prison Law.” I will
only paraphrase the article here as it is important to the analysis of the
STG/SDP Pilot Program. We must pay attention to this phrase and what it
In her article, Ms.
Dolovich explains that in cases concerning prisoners’ rights, the imperative of
judicial deference takes three forms: First, and most obvious is doctrine
constructing. In this respect, deference to prison officials is written right
into the substantive constitutional standards yielding rules of decision that
tip the scales in favor of the defendants – the state.
Second, deference is used
to justify procedural rule revising in ways that transform familiar aspects of
the legal process into more inherently defendant (state)-friendly procedural
mechanisms. In other words, if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the
pleadings to be read in the light most favorable to the party against whom
summary judgment is filed, typically a prisoner, in most cases, deference
prevents this rule from benefiting the prisoner.
Third, deference spurs
situation reframing or recasting of a procedural or factual history in ways
that enhance the defendant’s (the state’s) position at the plaintiff’s (the
prisoner’s) expense. Here is where a court will completely ignore a prisoner’s
factual allegations and reframe them in a way that bolsters the defendant’s
position and make it easier for the court to dismiss and/or deny the prisoner’s
In sum, Ms. Dolovich points
out that “far from achieving a balance between appropriate deference and
appropriate constitutional enforcement, the Court’s prisoners’ rights case law
seems instead to be a jurisprudence of evasion, justified by talismanic
reference to the need to defer to prison officials.”
This explains what’s kept
their policies so vague and their constant schemes to replace one hoax with
another any time their methods are questioned to any appreciable degree.
When the courts permitted
indeterminate confinement for non-disciplinary reasons, it did so because the
state convinced them that said confinement was not for disciplinary reasons or
punishment (Toussaint v. McCarthy) and that CDCR would review those placed in
segregation for administrative reasons, considering them for release every 120
Well, 30-plus years have
yielded ample evidence of the punitive nature of this kind of segregation with
the opening of Pelican Bay in 1989 and administrators smugly proclaiming to the
world that these guys are the “worst of the worst” and then going about the
task of selling that notion, which necessitated the creation of a little crime
and some violence to a certain degree! Who says crime doesn’t pay?
With this scheme, they
arbitrarily changed the Toussaint requirement to review for release. Now the
only way out would be to parole, debrief or die! Shortly thereafter Madrid v.
Gomez was litigated. The case was initially taken because – to his credit –
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson grew concerned about the large number of
excessive force complaints the court was receiving from Pelican Bay prisoners.
The case, while setting
some guidelines to monitor the use of force, turned its focus largely toward
the mental illness aspect of confinement to Pelican Bay SHU – i.e., sensory
deprivation. It would add another layer to the validation procedure by
requiring three independent sources to justify SHU confinement, while changing
The court side-stepped the
issue, leaving prisoners to languish and die, based on sensational allegations
of gang activity dreamed up by IGI (Institutional Gang Investigations) and OCS
(Office of Correctional Safety) and their informants, individuals they’ve
rewarded for their fantastic lies and grandiose imaginations. Informants invent
spectacular tales of slander, yet they themselves have worked in concert with
the state, much like lackeys in a Third World country, instigating and spurring
chaotic dissention and violence to benefit their handlers.
CDCR now says it recognizes
that new STG group affiliates and corresponding gang-type behavior has emerged
within the department’s sensitive needs yards (SNY) population. Now remember we
were told that SNY inmates were those who chose to debrief and disassociate
themselves from the gangs, yet they have this gang-type behavior cropping up on
the SNY yards.
It begs the question, did
these inmates debrief and lie on other prisoners in order to escape torturous
conditions only to resume their prior criminal activity? Or did they debrief
and lie on other prisoners only to be given greater access to resume their gang
activity? Whichever it is, CDCR admits its debriefers are exhibiting the
gang-type behavior that they’ve supposedly disassociated themselves from by
providing information about others!
The Madrid ruling changed
absolutely nothing and gave prisoners no protection at all when it came to
arbitrary gang validations, except to require their independent source item
rule, with one item establishing a direct link to a validated member. Again,
there is no interpretation of what a direct link is, which left the gates wide
open to the scandalous imagination of the gang investigators to invent bogus
gang validations as long as they established that one source item was directly
linked to a validated member.
They accomplish this in
several ways: The most common at the moment is 1) during a debriefing you were
identified as a member of X gang, or 2) during a cell search your name was
discovered on a roster listing validated members of X, or 3) – this is a good one
– you were found in possession of other validated gang members’ property.
In In Re Cabrera, the
California Court of Appeals interpreted CCR (California Code of Regulations)
Title 15, Section 3378(c)(4), finding that in order to establish a direct link
to a validated member or associate, IGI was required to prove that the
prisoners formed a mutual or reciprocal relationship. Seemed fair, seemed
reasonable; however, CDCR didn’t want the burden of having to prove its slander
so they appealed to the California Supreme Court, claiming the lower court
didn’t show or give enough deference to its judgment. And, as you might have
guessed, the highly activist anti-prisoner court agreed, stating “courts are
bound to defer to CDCR’s intervention of its regulations in gang identification
process” (In Re Cabrera, 55 Cal.4th 693 (2012)).
We’ll talk more about the
California Supreme Court later. To date, that court has rolled back every
prisoner case that’s come before it following a lower court victory for the
prisoner – every one.
Turning our attention to
Castillo v. Alameda, this is another highly touted, highly publicized case that
was supposed to change the validation process and afford prisoners
substantially more due process in validation proceedings and supposedly change
what source items could and could not be relied on without an articulable
Turned out “articulable
basis” meant anything about anything they wanted it to mean. For example, when
validated prisoners speak to or greet other validated prisoners, their basis
for using a “hello” is this: “Validated gang members are known to engage in
roll call. Sending regards to one another using their gang monikers (nicknames)
is a sign of respect for the gang. Based on my training and experience, this
constitutes gang activity.”
A court cannot say this is
ridiculous because Cabrera and other cases say courts are bound by CDCR’s
interpretation of its regulations. That’s substantial deference.
The California Supreme Court has rolled back every
prisoner case that’s come before it following a lower court victory for the
prisoner – every one.
The articulation of a basis
is limitless. Being validated, anything you do or say is characterized as gang
activity – anything. When mail is confiscated, to scare and/or intimidate family,
friends or the public, their basis is: “Gang members must communicate in order
to recruit and spread their gang propaganda. They are known to use coded
messages to recruit through the mail, etc.” This is a scare tactic.
The so-called Castillo
Agreement was supposed to have defined gang activity as knowingly furthering,
promoting or assisting a gang in activities that violate the law.
But what actually has
become the definition of gang activity is any documented activity between
validated gang members. This can be talking in the library or the yard, sharing
a look or a simple hello.
Being validated, anything you do or say is
characterized as gang activity – anything.
The changes Castillo
purported to make to the validation process resulted in the mistaken belief
that SHU review is to occur every six years as opposed to every 180 days.
Courts, afraid to even question CDCR lawyers and the like, all accepted this
erroneous persecution, despite Toussaint v. McCarthy, clearly holding review
must occur every 120 days and said review must amount to more than meaningless
While prisoners were told
they could be released from SHU after six years of no documented gang activity
– and true to form CDCR initially released about 90 prisoners from 2000-2004 and
sent about 100 or so to Corcoran SHU – the word was Pelican Bay was releasing
people. The same stunt is being employed now. CDCR says it has about 83
prisoners scheduled to be released per a case-by-case review.
However, this was only a
slick hoax. Those prisoners released remained under constant threat of being
returned to Pelican Bay unless they debriefed. By 2008, 90 percent of all
inactive releases had been returned to SHU. The process was looked upon by
prisoners as a hoax designed to quell the brewing storm waiting behind parole,
debrief or die!
So here we are again with
the new Security Threat Group/Step Down Program of 2012. We are again told that
we can, via the SDP, be released from SHU without having to debrief, by
participating in a five-year Step Down Program. Sound familiar? CDCR says it
will implement an incremental four-year STG/STP which by design will replace
the existing six-year inactive review process for validated STG affiliates.
The STP will be an
individual behavior-based program for STG affiliates that will provide
graduated housing, enhanced programs, inter-personal interactions, as well as
corresponding privileges and personal property enhancements for participating
STG affiliates. Sounds a lot like the failed policies of the past.
Get this: CDCR says
additionally you have the responsibility to report STG or criminal activity
when known or observed by you. This process is not intended to compromise your
safety but to enhance your safety through the identification and removal of those
involved in STG or criminal activities. Reporting your observations can be
accomplished via many avenues, including 1) contacting staff directly; 2)
writing a request for interview (CDCR GA-22); 3) notifying your counselor or
classification committee; 4) writing a letter to the institutional gang
investigator (IGI) at the address of your assigned institution; 5) writing a
confidential letter to the warden of your assigned institution.
If you have access to the
inmate telephone system, you can call a friend or family member who is willing
to contact the prison directly on your behalf so the staff can follow up and
take your report confidentially.
This cannot be reconciled
with anything other than what it sounds like: a brainwashing. They expect you
to report on the conduct of others around you and they give you several ways to
do it. These kinds of requirements encourage inmates to lie.
It appears that their
mindset is about creating informants – snitches – because in their mind the
only way one is not a threat is if he or she is an informant. No snitch, no
threat. This is the prescription they have for our lives!
The behavior and conduct of
other individuals should not be the responsibility of other prisoners to report
on. What the hell is this?
The STG/SDP is nothing but
more of the same window dressing with a new coat of paint. They now seek to
employ more aggressive brainwashing techniques aimed at inducing snitching. We
continue to be held here for the past 10, 20, 30 and 40-plus years because we
refuse to be and/or become government agents.
While they will undoubtedly
release individuals, these individuals will remain at risk of being returned to
the SHU if they fail to inform on the conduct of others. You must participate
in the program.
Without a real change of
substance to the gang validation policies, the STG pilot program is only a
continuation of the same old methodology of re-wording what already exists.
They seem to think they’re
dealing with children. They are trying to enforce a no-talking policy! Don’t
talk to so-and-so or so-and-so or you’ll get a time out. They seek to have an
entire population of men running around with their heads down, scared to speak
or share simple reading material for fear of being validated.
We continue to be held here for the past 10, 20, 30
and 40-plus years because we refuse to be and/or become government agents.
If you’re already
validated, this STG policy requires that you don’t associate with other STG
affiliates. Remember, association remains undefined and non-STG affiliates will
be validated for associating with validated STG affiliates. The entire gimmick
is a catch-22.
What is association?
Personally we know it is anything they want it to be – reading newspapers,
books and magazines, sharing a cell or simply a greeting. This is why the first
requirement in their SDP contract is for you to comply with the double cell
policy. What does that have to do with STG activity?
It seems as though the
conspiracy to continue using any old thing to ultimately create snitches and
justify parole denials is actually at the root of their scheme. This conspiracy
ought to be evident by the explanation given before the BPH (Board of Parole
Hearings) by George Giurbino explaining the STG policy.
It’s the BPH that’s been
the chief validator of CDCR’s management policies, operating with a carrot and
stick approach, validating otherwise sensational, unproven fabricated accounts
of gang activity by issuing vague, lengthy parole denials with references like
“You gotta get out the SHU” or “You have to decrease your custody level” or
relying on confidential information that the prisoner has no knowledge of. So
it’s no wonder the first place they ran to explain the rewording of their
latest scam was the SDP.
The SDP contract that one
must sign before being placed in or advancing through the SDP, folks are
reporting that it doesn’t appear to be a requirement. Well, that’s not what the
In fact, No. 3 of the
contract says, “Follow all staff recommendations and directives.” If by chance staff
recommend that you debrief and you do not comply, you have violated the
The so-called STG disciplinary matrix is really a
method to exact punishment for things like participating in a hunger strike or
talking to another prisoner or the way you criticize them in the media or the
subjects you study. The STG disciplinary matrix is a cheap way to exact
punishment for your thoughts in a way that justifies your continued involvement
in STG activities.
It’s worth noting that the
new STG disciplinary matrix has a violation for violating the STG contract.
Interestingly now, CDCR admits that the STG policy is not entirely
Of course not! Because it
would be impossible to continue running this racket without having the
discretion to fabricate and invent gang activity. An example is found in CCR
Title 15, Sec. 3378, validation criteria being a direct link to a current or
former validated member or associate.
The only way to be
validated on a link to a former validated prisoner is to debrief, so by hinging
any validation on a link to a former validated prisoner is a gimmick to
validate young, unsuspecting new prisoners when they arrive in the kamps,
unaware of anything and intentionally placed around debriefers who then become
the catalyst for their validation, and the cycle continues.
The current STG policy
still hasn’t determined what or who they will designate as a STG, because STG 1
members will be housed in segregation based solely on their validation. And
while they are claiming to be moving away from focusing solely upon the groups
they have traditionally focused on, like the BGF (Black Guerilla Family), the
Mexican Mafia, Northern Familia (NF) and the Aryan Brotherhood (AB), it’s hard
to believe that their supposed shifting focus won’t mean a STG designation for
those traditional groups. They haven’t said. It’s like they want us to sign a
blank contract and wait while they fill in the blanks.
They say STG associates
will remain in general population unless confirmed STG behavior or activities
are present. If these behaviors or activities are present, the STG associate
will be considered for segregated housing and placement into a five-year Step
Here’s the gist of it: A
validation will still mean punitive segregation without being found guilty of
anything at all, and validation as an associate will still mean a minimum of
six years in a SHU. Until one advances through a maze of a five-year Step Down
Program that now will employ advanced brainwashing techniques to induce snitching,
i.e., reporting on the conduct of others.
The STG pilot program is
not a credible revision of the policy to supposedly end long-term solitary
confinement based on status. There is nothing in the wording to prevent
arbitrary validations, something Madrid was supposed to address, then Castillo.
But each time the vagueness got vaguer, such as the term “training material,”
which can be anything a validated prisoner reads or studies – anything.
This has become the catch
phrase as pointed out by Shane Bauer in the October 2012 Mother Jones article. He says: “California officials
frequently cite possession of black literature,
and writing about prisoner rights as
evidence of gang affiliation. In the dozens of cases I reviewed, gang investigators have used the
term ‘[BGF] training material’ to refer to publications by California
Prison Focus ….”
The stories are endless
about what constitutes “training material.” Slavery is alive and well inside
the free world. Anything you read can be considered training material if it
offends them and enough prisoners read it.
They want us to sign some
vague contract that can be breached depending on their mood. But they refuse to
agree not to fabricate information in order to target and validate prisoners
they wish to remove from the general population and subject to long-term
torturous conditions until and unless they debrief or submit to their
They steadfastly refuse to
accept responsibility for subjecting thousands of prisoners to solitary
confinement for upwards of 40 years for no justifiable reason, other than it
has been profitable to do so.
If they were required to
prove the sensational allegations they create against individual prisoners,
they couldn’t, which is why the court invented the grandest scheme of all
called the “some evidence” rule (Superintendent v. Hill), which doesn’t require
them to prove anything at all.
So while they test the new
STG policy as being some sort of reform of what they admit are draconian
policies, we must not forget that they also sold their inactive policy as also
being a correction of previous unconstitutional practices that were accepted by
and justified in a series of unpublished rulings by the courts.
As one looks at this
so-called new STG policy, it really is an expansion of the validation model and
a continuation of the six-year SHU terms upon an initial validation as an
associate, albeit characterized as a five-year Step Down Program, where the
coercive tactics to debrief will be applied more systematically at each step.
They steadfastly refuse to accept responsibility for
subjecting thousands of prisoners to solitary confinement for upwards of 40
years for no justifiable reason, other than it has been profitable to do so.
The fabrication of STG
activity will increase with a so-called disciplinary matrix that employs vague
code words like “training material.”
As we have seen in In Re
Cabrera, CDCR fought to remove the definite definition of the term “direct
link” because to do so would defeat their purpose. They claim that we’re here
because of acts of violence. We say, then charge us. Prove what you say!
As much as our struggle is
with CDCR and its policies, it is even more so a struggle with the courts and
legislators that have permitted this to continue, not to mention the prisoners
themselves with the courts’ slave-era approach to permitting prison officials
to punish – and we know now that this is punishment – based on allegations,
without our having been charged with or found guilty of any misconduct at all.
Yet we are treated as if we had committed a crime, much like the institution of
slavery was expanded by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision of
Basically the Supreme Court
would decide a similar issue in Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961), holding: “In
our jurisprudence, guilt is personal, and when the imposition of punishment on
a status or on conduct can only be justified by reference to the relationship
of that status or conduct to other concededly criminal activity …, that
relationship must be sufficiently substantiated to satisfy the concept of personal
guilt in order to withstand attack under the Due Process Clause of the 5th
Amendment.” The Court concluded that without more, mere membership in an
organization engaged in illegal conduct is not sufficient to establish the
required relationship between that membership status and criminal activity.
Since prisoners are
essentially slaves, this reasoning does not apply. Prisoners are only entitled
to minimum constitutional protection, since the state says prisoners’ status
(segregation) is not for punishment but for safety and security (Toussaint).
But when justifying this
crap, they’re quick to paint with a broad brush that we’ve earned our way into
SHU with acts of violence and other misconduct. They’ve had it both ways for
40-plus years. Charge us or release us – period!
There’s 30 years’ worth of
evidence of punishment based on status that they’ve substantially tried to
justify with ploys like Madrid and Castillo, while actually changing nothing,
one ploy after another. This ought to be revisited to determine, based on the
30 year period, are we being punished? And if so, then the Toussaint ruling
ought to be carried to its only logical conclusion and mandate the full panoply
of constitutional protections for those placed in segregation for so-called gang
If the U.S. Supreme Court
can revisit the 1965 Voting Rights Act to determine, based on evidence, whether
discrimination still exists in voting so as to determine whether the 1965
voting rights act is still necessary, then there is no reasonable reason why
the ruling in Toussaint can’t be revisited for those very same purposes.
In fact, in Wolff v.
McDonnell, Justice Marshall advocated the in camera review of confidential
informants which, of course, was rejected by the Court, citing legitimate
A couple of years later, in
Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976), the Supreme Court took up the issue again, holding
“the better course at this time, in a period where prison practices are diverse
and somewhat experimental, is to leave these matters to the sound discretion of
the officials of state prisons.” However, the court emphasized that its limited
list of inmate due process protections was not “graven in stone.” “As the
nature of the prison disciplinary process changes in the future, circumstances
may then exist which will require further consideration and reflective of this
The Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) rose to its zenith
on the backs of prisoners, and ultimately it will meet its decline on the backs
of our united collective determined efforts. It is what they fear the most.
The time is now. We have 30
years’ worth of evidence that shows state officials have abused their
discretion by carrying forth old vendettas under the guise of gang suppression.
The so-called STG disciplinary
matrix is really a method to exact punishment for things like participating in
a hunger strike or talking to another prisoner or the way you criticize them in
the media or the subjects you study. If you thought the articulable basis was
far out there, wait until that basis is employed in conjunction with the STG
In other words, the matrix
is a cheap way to exact punishment for your thoughts in a way that justifies
your continued involvement in STG activities.
So while we find all manner
of excuses to avoid acting, and while we lie in the corner and pretend it’s
somebody else’s problem, ultimately we must drag ourselves to act. This is our
problem. The martyrs of yesterday are not here.
For decades folks would
spout about what prisoners needed to do, when they thought the divisions were
insurmountable. Well, our reps have done that so stop the happy-happy-feel-good
talk and drag yourself to the table. What can you contribute? How can you
support the effort? Those are the only questions that ought to be asked.
We can either die quietly,
paving the way for future generations to endure this crap, or we can do
something about it. We have absolutely nothing to lose. “Power concedes nothing
without a demand.
It never did and it never will.” – Frederick Douglass
The time is now. We have 30 years’ worth of evidence
that shows state officials have abused their discretion by carrying forth old
vendettas under the guise of gang suppression.
Prisoners are well within
their human rights to demand an end to state-sanctioned torture. Now is not the
time to be intimidated into silence. If the courts will not act to protect our
constitutional rights or provide us with the full panoply of constitutional
protections when a so-called validation brings a wide array of punishments yet
the prisoner hasn’t broken any rules, then it’s our duty to act. This crap has
lasted this long because as a class we accepted it.
The Prison Industrial
Complex (PIC) rose to its zenith on the backs of prisoners, and ultimately it
will meet its decline on the backs of our united collective determined efforts.
It is what they fear the most.
The SDP is a hoax. It
simply rehashes old failed policies. Our reps have put forth the correct
solution that incorporates an experienced, comprehensive approach towards an
end to long-term solitary confinement. It’s worth reiterating the reps issued
the Pelican Bay Human Rights Modern Management Control Unit (MMCU), a counter proposal to the
STG strategy published in the April 2012 Bay View.
Send our brothers some
love and light: Dadisi Kambon (Lorenzo Benton), B-85066, PBSP SHU, D2-101L,
P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532-7500; Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa (Ronnie N.
Dewberry), C-35671, PBSP SHU, D1-117L, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA
95532-7500; Abdul Olugbala Shakur (James Harvey), C-48884, PBSP SHU, D1-119L,
P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532-7500; Sondai Dumisani (Randall Ellis),
C-68764, PBSP SHU, D1-223L, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532-7500; Mutope
Duguma (James Crawford), D-05596, PBSP SHU, D1-117U, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent
City, CA 95532-7500; Abasi Ganda (Clyde Jackson), C-33559, PBSP SHU, D2-107L,
P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532-7500. This statement was
transcribed by Adrian McKinney.