California Cops Clamp Down on Disneyland Dissent

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Infantile Disorder

Broad sections of the Anaheim working class are seething with anger at cops

Disneyland in Anaheim is emblematic of 'the American dream' - a make-believe world where 'good' always triumphs over 'evil' in the end, and childhood innocence lasts forever. Yet at the gates of this fairytale paradise, torrents of anger are being directed at police for the huge amounts of state killings in the area, and the guardians of the rich are responding with ever more militaristic displays of power.

The wave of unrest began ten days ago, when cops shot and killed 25-year-old Manuel Diaz. The chief of police immediately labelled Diaz a "documented gang member". According to the official version, Diaz and two other men were talking in an alley when police approached them. The men ran, and the officers gave chase, eventually firing at the unarmed Diaz, after he had thrown an object - possibly heroin - onto a roof.

Considering the local circumstances, it is hardly surprising that many of Anaheim's residents didn't find Diaz's supposed 'gang member' status a good enough reason to kill him. After, Diaz was the fourth victim of the city's finest this year alone. He was followed just one day later by 21-year-old Joel Acevedo. As far as gang war death tolls go, five in just seven months is quite prolific.

In the meantime, demonstrators had crowded the lobby of the Anaheim PD, as the chief held a press conference. They chanted "no justice, no peace, fuck the police", and "cops, pigs, murderers". And even as authorities moved to seal off the scene, they were met with rocks and bottles. Cops retaliated with rubber bullets, and a savage dog attack on one woman, which they later labelled "accidental".

Protests simmered throughout the week, before another police shooting - this time non-fatal - on Thursday, when tensions were brought boiling back to the surface. On Sunday, a mass demonstration of several hundred were faced down by mounted cops in riot gear and heavily armed paramilitary-style troopers protecting the police station. An impromptu march towards the tourist haven of Disneyland was headed off by hundreds of security forces. The demonstration was declared an "illegal assembly", and nine arrests were made.

Despite the obvious groundswell of anger, it is difficult to predict where this new movement is going. Liberal Latino group Presente is trying to channel energy behind a petition for an attorney general inquiry. As the history of policing shows ad nauseam, such an inquiry would inevitably whitewash Anaheim cops.

The scene at Anaheim police HQ on Sunday

Ultimately, the brutal policing in Anaheim, the community's response to it, and then the authorities' nervous and draconian reaction all have their roots in the decaying state of American capitalism itself. With Anaheim's tourism-based economy stagnating since the onset of the economic crisis, official unemployment in the area is currently just under 10% - two per cent above the national average and a huge increase on 2006. The poverty rate is also rising, and is particularly pronounced amongst black and Latino people. With cuts raining down from everywhere, and a new wave of job losses about to crest, the authorities can only offer ever more draconian repression.

An inquiry here or there will never fix the problem of the growing police state. That is something only a massive class conscious movement against the super rich can achieve.

One Year After Historic Hunger Strike, Isolated California Prisoners Report Little Change

August 6, 2012 Solitary Confinement

by Sal Rodriguez

 

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.

Another Corcoran inmate who has been in the SHU for over 20 years also reports doubts about the Step Down Program, and thinks that there will be no changes. He also offers his opinion on the validity of the SHU in the first place, echoing the sentiments of many SHU inmates that any use of isolation should be based on conduct rather than gang affiliation.

“I don’t think anyone should be housed in isolation for more than a few weeks, if at all, and without meaningful program. SHU should consist of a system that includes earning meaningful privileges, and a dignified manner in being released. The SHU should be used for exactly the purpose that it is supposed to be used for: to house those prisoners who conduct threatens the safety and security of the prison,” he writes.

An inmate at North Kern State Prison’s Administrative Segregation Unit reports that himself and several inmates have waited over a year to be transferred to one of the SHU’s. “The waiting list can take up to three years, I’ve been here 15 months due to the overcrowding by the I.G.I. (Institutional Gang Investigators) validating everybody as prison gang members,” he writes, “a lot of us New Afrikans, Latin Amerikans, poor whites and indiegenous people have been labeled for reading our culture and history…I’ve witnessed men lose their minds behind these walls, cut their wrists to kill themselves in order to escape this mental torture, spread feces on themselves and the walls, yell out and scream, some are on psychotropic medication that causes them to turn into human zombies where they don’t even know who they are anymore.”

Solitary Watch will continue to report on the situation in California as information becomes available.

Near-Riot Breaks Out After Officer-Involved Shooting In Anaheim

 July 21, 2012 (CBS/AP)

ANAHEIM  — A police shooting that left a man dead led to a near-riot Saturday as angry witnesses threw bottles at officers who responded with tear gas and beanbag rounds.



The man was shot around 4 p.m. in front of an apartment complex on the 600 block of North Anna Drive following a foot chase, Anaheim Sgt. Bob Dunn said. He died three hours later at a hospital.

The Orange County Register cited family members and neighbors who said the man shot was Manuel Diaz. Dunn said he could not confirm the man’s name early Sunday.

His niece, 16-year-old Daisy Gonzalez, said her uncle likely ran away from officers when they approached him because of his past experience with law enforcement. “He (doesn’t) like cops. He never liked them because all they do is harass and arrest anyone,” Gonzalez said.

Residents, protesting what they say is an increased police violence against them in the community, started the near riot after the shooting on nearby La Palma.

Crystal Ventura, a 17-year-old who witnessed the shooting, told the Register the man had his back to the officer. She said the man was shot in the buttocks area. The man then went down on his knees, and she said he was struck by another bullet in the head. Another officer handcuffed the man who by then was on the ground and not moving, Ventura said.

“They searched his pockets, and there was a hole in his head, and I saw blood on his face,” she said.

Dunn said he could not comment on these allegations because the shooting is under investigation.

Jay Jackson, reporting for CBS2 and KCAL9, said Saturday night’s scene was chaotic.
The residents blocked off a street and set fire to at least one dumpster.
Earlier in the day, police in riot gear, fired rubber bullets into the crowd. Several protesters lifted their shirts to show large red welts on their torsos and backs.

Residents told Jackson that police overreacted and created the disturbance.
One man said, “They just started shooting.”

Police also set a K-9 officer on one woman and a bystander they said were agitating the situation.

Said Susan Lopez, “I had my baby with me. My baby! The dog scratched me and then grabbed me.” She added, “They shot at me while I was holding a baby!” Another woman yelled, “They just shot at us, they shot at a little kid, too.”

According to police, two patrol officers observed three male suspects in an alley.
Police said the suspects tried to flee on foot when a chase ensued.

The shooting reportedly occurred after one of the officers encountered one of the suspects in a courtyard.

No officers were injured.

The other two suspects are at-large.

Dunn said, “What exactly led to the shooting, we don’t know. We’re still investigating. But a shooting did occur. And the male was taken to a hospital.”

Authorities said the circumstances regarding the shooting were under investigation by members of the gangs unit and Orange County District Attorney’s office.

Four people told Jackson that police offered to buy their cell phone video.

Pelican Bay Prison – One Year Later, Policy Remains “Debrief or Die”

July 11, 2012 criticalmassprogress.com 
by Victoria Law
 
In October 1990, only months after being transferred to Pelican Bay’s Security Housing Unit (SHU), Todd Ashker was shot in the right wrist by a prison guard. “This nearly severed my hand from my wrist and caused severe damage to hand, wrist and forearm,” he recounted. Ashker stated that he was denied medical care, including pain management, and was told by medical staff, “If you want better care, get out of SHU. It’s your choice.” Only after he won a court injunction in February 2010 was he given an arm brace and physical therapy. [Letter from Todd Ashker, November 13, 2011.] Ashker’s experience is the norm rather than the exception. “Prisoners with medical concerns are routinely told by prison officials that if they want better medical care for their conditions or illnesses, or improved pain management, the way to obtain adequate care is to debrief,” states a federal lawsuit filed by Ashker and other SHU prisoners.

On July 1, 2011, Ashker and thousands of other prisoners went on hunger strike to protest such draconian conditions. As reported in Truthout last year, for three weeks, at least 1,035 of the 1,111 inmates locked in the SHU refused food. In the SHU, which comprises half of California’s Pelican Bay State Prison, prisoners are locked into their cells for at least 22 hours a day. Over 500 people have been confined in the SHU for over a decade, over 200 for more than 15 years and 78 for over 20 years. The only way that a person can be released from the SHU is to debrief, or provide information incriminating other prisoners. Even those who are eligible for parole have been informed that they will not be granted parole so long as they are in the SHU. “They are told they can debrief or die,” stated Jules Lobel, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which recently filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of the SHU prisoners. [Press conference by phone, May 31, 2012.]


The Pelican Bay hunger strike spread to 13 other state prisons and, at its height, involved at least 6,600 people incarcerated throughout California.

“We have decided to put our fate in our own hands. Some of us have already suffered a slow, agonizing death in which the state has shown no compassion toward these dying prisoners.” Mutope DuGuma, one of the hunger strike representatives, wrote in the original announcement for the hunger strike. “No one wants to die. Yet under this current system of what amounts to immense torture, what choice do we have? If one is to die, it will be on our own terms.”

The hunger strikers at Pelican Bay issued five core demands:

1. Eliminate group punishments for individual rules violations;
2. Abolish the debriefing policy and modify active/inactive gang status criteria;
3. Comply with the recommendations of the 2006 US Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons regarding an end to long-term solitary confinement;
4. Provide adequate food;
5. Expand and provide constructive programs and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates.

In September, when the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) failed to address these demands, prisoners resumed their hunger strike. The strike spread to 12 prisons inside California as well as to prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma that housed California prisoners. On October 13, prisoners at Pelican Bay ended their nearly three-week hunger strike after the CDCR guaranteed a comprehensive review of every prisoner in California whose SHU sentence is related to gang validation under new criteria. Two days later, hunger strikers at Calipatria State Prison stopped their strike to allow time to regain their strength.

Drawing by Kevin " Rashid" Johnson. This drawing by Rashid Johnson for his comrades in California was immediately adopted as the icon of the hunger strikes that drew over 12,000 participants. Rashid, who excels not only as an artist but as a writer as well, is commonly compared to the legendary George Jackson.

Hunger strikers were issued write-ups for “leading a riot or strike or causing others to commit acts of force and violence,” stated a hunger strike representative. [Letter from Paul Redd, December 29, 2011.] The CDCR threatened to refer these cases to the local district attorney for outside prosecution; if found guilty, the hunger strikers would receive additional sentences. Ultimately, however, the charges were dropped.

In the following months, three hunger strike participants committed suicide: Johnny Owens Vick and Alex Machado were both confined in the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit; Hozel Alanzo Blanchard was confined in the Calipatria Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU). Many of the hunger strikers blame the agonizing conditions in the SHU and ASU for the men’s deaths: “Obviously these men could not stand it anymore and preferred to die by their own hand rather than be subject to another minute of torture,” declared Todd Ashker. [Letter from Todd Ashker, December 26, 2011.]

In late December 2011, prisoners at California’s Corcoran State Prison’s ASU launched a hunger strike. They issued 11 demands, including adequate access to the law library and legal assistance and an end to the practice of holding prisoners in ASU after they have served their sentences in the unit. Prison staff transferred those who were identified as hunger strike leaders to the psychiatric ward and issued all participants violation notices for “participation in mass disturbances.” In February 2012, 27-year-old Christian Gomez died a week after joining the hunger strike.

In March 2012, the CDCR released its plan around SHU classification. The plan proposed identifying prisoners as part of Security Threat Groups (STGs) and placing them in SHU. It did not specify alternatives to debriefing for release from the SHU; instead, it offered a vague four-year plan.

Pelican Bay hunger strikers rejected the proposal: “The tools are still in place to keep us in the SHU indefinitely and, in some cases, they are planning on expanding this abuse by making it even more inclusive of a broader class of people with no end in sight,” explained hunger striker Lorenzo Benton. [Letter from Lorenzo Benton, June 5, 2012.] By designating people as part of STGs, the proposal expands the number of people who can be placed in the SHU. The proposal also continues the CDCR’s current policy of keeping alleged gang members in SHU indefinitely and does not respond to hunger strikers’ first three demands. Furthermore, noted Benton, “there does not exist any physical structural changes within our environment. We are still housed in an isolated environment for a prolonged period of time with hardly any meaningful contact.” [Letter from Lorenzo Benton, March 27, 2012.] Benton conceded that “a few creature comforts were bestowed upon us to pacify the masses, but our struggle is not about making prison more comfortable. It’s about being treated humanely and with the hope of a positive future.” [Letter from Lorenzo Benton, June 5, 2012.]

The hunger strikers issued their own counter proposal entitled the Modern-Management Control Unit (MMCU). Modeled after the Max-B management control unit programs in the 1970s and 1980s, the MMCU calls for the end of relying solely on confidential informants for SHU placement and using activities such as group petitions, birthday cards etc. as evidence of gang affiliations. In addition, it outlines a three-phase process for SHU release without requiring debriefing.

Hunger striker Mutope DuGuma stated that, at a follow-up meeting with hunger strikers and the mediation team, the CDCR representative “indicated that they’re going ahead with their proposal regardless of our counterproposal.” [Mutope DuGuma, May 28, 2012.] Instead, the CDCR has placed its proposal into the state’s revised budget.

However, DuGuma and others have not lost hope. “We are still going strong,” he stated. “We are working constantly, prisoners and the mediation team. Our five core demands have not been implemented [and] we all signed on to fight till they are.” [Letter from Mutope DuGuma, May 28, 2012.]

On March 20th, 400 prisoners in California’s SHUs and ASUs petitioned the United Nations to intervene on behalf of the more than 4,000 prisoners similarly situated. The petition can be downloaded from here. Five months earlier, in October 2011, shortly after the hunger strikes ended, Juan Mendez, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, presented a written report on solitary confinement in the US to the UN General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee. He stated that solitary confinement “can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, indefinitely or for a prolonged period, for persons with mental disabilities or juveniles. Segregation, isolation, separation, cellular, lockdown, supermax, the hole, secure housing unit … whatever the name, solitary confinement should be banned by states as a punishment or extortion (of information) technique.” He called for a ban on any type of solitary confinement exceeding 15 days.

On May 31, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of those who have spent between ten and 28 years in Pelican Bay’s SHU, including the hunger strikers. The suit, Ruiz v. Brown, names ten plaintiffs and seeks to establish two classes of prisoners entitled to relief. The larger class consists of all prisoners serving indefinite SHU terms based on gang validation. The suit argues that their rights to due process are violated by this review process. The current review process consists of three steps: First, the prisoner is urged to debrief. Second, a mental health staff member asks, “Do you have a history of mental illness? Do you want to hurt yourself or others?” Third, the classification committee “reviews” the paperwork in the prisoner’s file. However, unless the prisoner is willing to debrief, the review allows no possibility of release from the SHU even though many have had no serious rule violations during their confinement.

The subclass consists of over 500 prisoners who have been or who will be confined to the SHU for ten years or longer. The suit argues that their prolonged SHU confinement violates their Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, including:

• the cumulative effect of prolonged solitary confinement, notably psychological pain and suffering as well as “significant risk of future debilitating and permanent mental illness and physical harm”
• the denial of good-time credits and parole
• the deprivation of quality medical care

The plaintiffs seek a court injunction ordering the governor and the CDCR to present a plan within thirty days of the court order which:

• Provides for the release from the SHU of those confined for more than ten years
• Changes SHU conditions so that prisoners are no longer subject to isolation, sensory deprivation, lack of social and physical human contact and environmental deprivation
• Meaningful review of the continued need for SHU confinement of all prisoners in the SHU both currently and in the future

Nunn noted that, although the suit is limited to the SHU at Pelican Bay, any court ruling would affect the conditions and increasingly routine use of solitary confinement in other prisons. [Press conference by phone, May 31, 2012.]

The actions of both prisoners and outside allies have led to widespread attention to the issue of solitary confinement. Prisoner hunger strikes protesting extreme conditions have also erupted in Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

On June 19, 2012, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights held the first-ever Congressional hearing on solitary confinement. In his opening statements, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin read descriptions of Pelican Bay’s SHU as an example of the extreme inhumanity of solitary confinement.
So, what next? “So it’s now all about ramping up support for a new round of peaceful responsive actions,” wrote Ashker in a recent letter. [Asher, June, 10, 2012.]

Supporters are doing just that: To commemorate the strike’s one-year anniversary, Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity, a Bay Area coalition of family, friends and supporters of the hunger strikers, will be organizing a Month of Education, including building a replica of a SHU cell to be used at outreach events, organizing educational events (and urging those in other states to do the same), continuing legal visits and setting up a pen pal network to connect California prisoners with outside supporters.

Victoria Law is a writer, photographer and mother. She is the author of “Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women” (PM Press 2009), the editor of the zine Tenacious: Art and Writings from Women in Prison and a co-founder of Books Through Bars – NYC. She is currently working on transforming “Don’t Leave Your Friends Behind,” a zine series on how radical movements can support the families in their midst, into a book.

Drawing: Kevin “Rashid” Johnson

Editors Note: For additional updates on the on-going hunger strikes in California, Georgia and elsewhere please see Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity and SF Bay View.

One Year Anniversary of Pelican Bay Hunger Strike Against Solitary Confinement

July 3, 2012 by Sal Rodriguez Solitary Watch

One year ago on July 1, 2011, approximately 6,600 inmates across California launched a hunger strike in protest of conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison.  The leaders of the strike were a group of prisoners referred to as the Pelican Bay Short Corridor Collective, a multiracial group of prisoners.

The group issued five demands:
1. End Group Punishment & Administrative Abuse
2. Abolish the Debriefing Policy, and Modify Active/Inactive Gang Status Criteria
3. Comply with the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons 2006 Recommendations Regarding an End to Long-Term Solitary Confinement
4. Provide Adequate and Nutritious Food
5. Expand and Provide Constructive Programming and Privileges for Indefinite SHU Status Inmates.
The strike would last three weeks before coming to an end. Several strikers would be hospitalized. The strike brought attention to the widespread use of solitary confinement in California; currently, approximately three thousand inmates are held in one of California’s three Security Housing Units, where inmates determined to be gang members are sentenced to indefinite terms in solitary confinement. Those sentenced to the SHU for gang validation must either become an informant and leave the gang, must be inactive for six years, or they must parole from their sentence; the phrase “Parole, Snitch, or Die” captures the means of leaving the SHU.

The strike prompted the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee to hold a hearing on the issue of long-term solitary confinement in California’s prisons. Corrections officials defended their use of the SHU, arguing that it was necessary in controlling prison gangs. Critics pointed to the mounting evidence of the detrimental effects of solitary confinement, the absence of due process in gang validation, and the fact that many inmates have been isolated for decades.

The hunger strike would not be the last. On September 26, 2011, prisoners would launch another hunger strike that would also last approximately three weeks.

At least two hunger strikers would commit suicide.

Smaller strikes would follow at Corcoran State Prison’s Administrative Segregation Unit months later.  One hunger striker, Christian Gomez, would die during the strike.

In March 2012, California Correctional officials released a new gang validation policy. The plan revised the criteria for being validated a gang member and implemented a step-down program in which inmates could hypothetically be released from the SHU in four years, instead of the average of 6.8 years. This plan would
Many of the original hunger strike leaders issued a counterproposal. Several have commented that the proposed reforms are inadequate and argue instead that placement in solitary should be based on conduct rather than real or suspected prison gang membership.

On May 31, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Pelican Bay SHU inmates who have been in solitary confinement for over 10 years, arguing that such long terms in solitary constitute violations of the Eighth Amendment. In addition the lawsuit challenges the gang validation system, arguing that the current system is a denial of Due Process rights.

To date, there remain over 3,000 inmates in Security Housing Units, and thousands more housed in solitary confinement in one of several Administrative Segregation Units across the state.

It remains to be seen how the new CDCR policies are implemented and how the many inmates effected by them will react.

Writings from Hunger Strikers:
Letter from a Pelican Bay Hunger Striker
Letter from a Tehachapi Hunger Striker

Profile of a Pelican Bay Hunger Striker
“Give Us in Here the Strength to See This Thing Through”: A Chronicle of the Pelican Bay Hunger Strike

Prisoners Respond to Policy Reforms
Five Prisoner Responses to the Gang Validation Reforms
Prisoner Counterproposal
Voices from Solitary: A Lose-Lose Situation

Prison lacked cause to seize letter, court rules

June 6, 2012 San Francisco Chronicle by Bob Egelko

When maximum-security inmate James Crawford tried to mail a letter to a San Francisco newspaper in which he described himself as a "New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man," a prison officer confiscated it, saying it threatened prison security and probably contained coded gang messages.

But the officer failed to identify the code, specify the security threat or respect the constitutional rights of the inmate, a state appeals court ruled Monday in ordering the letter delivered - more than two years after it was written.

"Prisoners retain their right to the freedom of speech unless the warden can prove that exercising that right would constitute a threat to prison security," said the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

"Even prisoners who are gang members retain rights of expression and those rights cannot be taken away by a governmental agency simply speculating" about security risks, said Justice James Lambden in the 3-0 ruling.

Crawford was convicted of robbery and auto theft in Los Angeles County, according to state records. Described by prison officials as a member of the Black Guerrilla Family prison gang, he is in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State Prison in Del Norte County.

The prison seized his letter, addressed to the San Francisco Bay View newspaper, from its mail system in April 2010. The letter disputed the newspaper's tally of political prisoners in California and said there were many inmates, like Crawford, held in solitary confinement "because of political beliefs in a New Afrikan Nationalist Revolutionary Man."

A prison guard who monitors the gang's mail said "New Afrikan" was a reference to the Black Guerrilla Family's ideology. Gang members use that ideology, the guard said, in "sophisticated codes" to promote gang activity, both in the prisons and on the streets.

Crawford denied any such intention and said his message was entirely political. Stanford history Professor James Campbell submitted a declaration in his behalf, saying "New Afrikan" was a phrase from a self-determination movement in the 1960s and 1970s that was unrelated to prison gangs.

Crawford's lawyer, Donald Specter, said Monday's ruling was important for prisoners who have "very limited access to the outside world."

"To have the prison censor them is to deprive them of what little freedom they have left," he said.

Lawsuit Challenges Solitary Confinement at California Prison

Center for Constitutional Rights


Prolonged Solitary Confinement at Pelican Bay is Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Torture, Lawyers Say
May 31, 2012, Oakland – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison who have spent between 10 and 28 years in solitary confinement. The legal action is part of a larger movement to reform inhumane conditions in California prisons’ Security Housing Units (SHU), a movement dramatized by a 2011 hunger strike by thousands of SHU prisoners; the named plaintiffs include hunger strikers, among them several of the principal negotiators for the hunger strike. The class action suit, which is being jointly filed by CCR and several advocate and legal organizations in California, alleges that prolonged solitary confinement violates Eight Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the absence of meaningful review for SHU placement violates the prisoners’ right to due process.  

“The prolonged conditions of brutal confinement and isolation such as those at Pelican Bay have rightly been condemned as torture by the international community,” said CCR President Jules Lobel. “These conditions strip prisoners of their basic humanity and cross the line between humane treatment and barbarity.” Advocates hope that the suit will strike a blow against the increasingly routine use of solitary confinement in American prisons.

 

SHU prisoners spent 22 ½ to 24 hours every day in a cramped, concrete, windowless cell. They are denied telephone calls, contact visits, and vocational, recreational or educational programming. Food is often rotten and barely edible, and medical care is frequently withheld. More than 500 Pelican Bay SHU prisoners have been isolated under these conditions for over 10 years, more than 200 of them for over 15 years; and 78 have been isolated in the SHU for more than 20 years. Today’s suit claims that prolonged confinement under these conditions has caused “harmful and predictable psychological deterioration” among SHU prisoners. Solitary confinement for as little as 15 days is now widely recognized to cause lasting psychological damage to human beings and is analyzed under international law as torture.

 

Additionally, the suit alleges that SHU prisoners are denied any meaningful review of their SHU placement, rendering their isolation “effectively permanent.” SHU assignment is an administrative act, condemning prisoners to a prison within a prison; it is not part of a person’s court-ordered sentence for his or her crime. California, alone among all fifty states and most other jurisdictions in the world, imposes extremely prolonged solitary confinement based merely on a prisoner’s alleged association with a prison gang. Gang affiliation is assessed without considering whether a prisoner has ever undertaken an act on behalf of a gang or whether he is – or ever was – actually involved in gang activity. Moreover, SHU assignments disproportionately affect Latinos. The percentage of Latino prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU was 85% in 2011, far higher than their representation in the general prison population, which was 41%. The only way out of SHU isolation alive and sane is to “debrief,” to inform on other prisoners, placing those who do so and their families in significant danger of retaliation and providing those who are unable to debrief effectively no way out of SHU isolation.

 

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, California Prison Focus, Siegel & Yee, and the Law Offices of Charles Carbone are co-counsel on the case.    

 

The case is Ruiz v. Brown, and it seeks to amend an earlier pro se lawsuit filed by Pelican Bay SHU prisoners Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell. The case is before Judge Claudia Wilken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Click here to read the complaint. 

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

The crime of punishment at Pelican Bay State Prison

May 31, 2012 by Gabriel Reyes San Francisco Chronicle

For the past 16 years, I have spent at least 22 1/2 hours of every day completely isolated within a tiny, windowless cell in the Security Housing Unit at California's Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City (Del Norte County).

Eighteen years ago, I committed the crime that brought me here: burgling an unoccupied dwelling. Under the state's "three strikes" law, I was sentenced to between 25 years and life in prison. From that time, I have been forced into solitary confinement for alleged "gang affiliation." I have made desperate and repeated appeals to rid myself of that label, to free myself from this prison within a prison, but to no avail.

The circumstances of my case are not unique; in fact, about a third of Pelican Bay's 3,400 prisoners are in solitary confinement; more than 500 have been there for 10 years, including 78 who have been here for more than 20 years, according to a 2011 report by National Public Radio. Unless you have lived it, you cannot imagine what it feels like to be by yourself, between four cold walls, with little concept of time, no one to confide in, and only a pillow for comfort - for years on end. It is a living tomb. I eat alone and exercise alone in a small, dank, cement enclosure known as the "dog-pen." I am not allowed telephone calls, nor can my family visit me very often; the prison is hundreds of miles from the nearest city. I have not been allowed physical contact with any of my loved ones since 1995. I have developed severe insomnia, I suffer frequent headaches, and I feel helpless and hopeless. In short, I am being psychologically tortured.

Claimed reforms or opportunities to be transferred out of the SHU are tokens at best.

Our other option to improve our lot is "debriefing," which means informing on prisoner activities. The guards use this tactic as leverage in exchange for medical care, food, amenities and even, theoretically, removal from the SHU. Debrief sessions are held in complete secrecy. When another prisoner is the subject of a debrief, he is not informed of the content, so he is punished with no means to challenge the accusations.

I have two disciplinary citations on my record. The first arose because I donated artwork to a non-profit organization. The other is because I participated in a statewide hunger strike to protest conditions in the SHU. The strike was thought to be a success, with more than 6,000 inmates going without food for several weeks and ending with the promise of serious reforms from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In spite of the promises, the CDCR does not plan to institute any meaningful reforms.

Now fellow SHU inmates and I have joined together with the Center for Constitutional Rights in a federal lawsuit that challenges this treatment as unconstitutional. I understand I broke the law, and I have lost liberties because of that. But no one, no matter what they've done, should be denied fundamental human rights, especially when that denial comes in the form of such torture. Our Constitution protects everyone living under it; fundamental rights must not be left at the prison door.

Gabriel Reyes is a prisoner at California's Pelican Bay State Prison.

Oakland Police Chief Confronted & Shut Down at Justice 4 Alan Blueford Townhall

  

Alan Blueford murdered by Oakland Police

May 24, 2012 Davey D's Hip Hop Corner

Since the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, there have been closed to 30 Black or Brown people shot and killed by law enforcement or in the case of Trayvon, wannabe law enforcement. Many of these shootings have been highly questionable, meaning the person killed was unarmed or there are strong conflicting statements from either the police or witnesses.

Here in Oakland, California, the shooting death Alan Dwayne Blueford is one such killing.  Oakland police have been very shady with the stories they put forth to the public. It seems like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, cast seeds of doubt and cover up their own mistakes.. Initially police said they were in a shoot out and Blueford shot the officer in the stomach.. Later the police said Blueford shot the officer in the leg..Next the police said that it was possible the officer was shot in the leg by another officer in a case of friendly fire..Finally it came out that the officer shot himself. He shot himself in the foot..

Many believe the officer shot himself after he killed Blueford and saw the young man was unarmed.. The police then double back and said a gun was recovered, the community has yet to see any evidence of finger prints , gun residue etc.. Many have concluded it was the officer planting a gun near the scene.. This would not be unsual in a city that in the past 10 years has had to shell out over 58 million dollars in wrongful death shootings and police brutality incidents. This would not be far-fetched in a city that was home to a rogue group of cops known as the Riders who were found to routinely plant drugs and guns on suspects. One of the Oakland Riders is a still a fugitive at large..

 

Adding to all this was the fact that Blueford was left to on the ground for 4 hours to die while the officer who lied and then finally admitted to shooting himself was treated. The public still does not know the name of the officer thanks to California’s Policeman’s Bill of Rights which prevents the public from knowing the name of officers involved in these and other brutality incidents.. Community investigators have revealed the officer who murdered Blueford is Miguel Masso a former military man who lives in Los Banos which is more than 100 miles outside of Oakland..

Blueford’s parents were not aware of their son’s death for more than 6 hours. They went down to the police station were treated like crap and not told for more than 2 hours. Their mistreatment led to the unusual move by Chief Howard Jordan to meet and apologize to the family.

In an attempt to do more damage control, OPD held a town hall meeting at Acts Full Gospel Church. Folks showed up only to discover the police chief would only answer questions that were pre-written. This annoyed folks to no end.. Then he seemed ill prepared or unable to answer basic questions.. He also hawked what many saw as blatant lies.. This led to more than half the room turning their backs on the chief and throwing up fist..

The chief cut the meeting short and left the building with angry residents in tow.. They got at him and let him know that there needs to be accountability and the community would not stand for his lies..The chief was definitely embarrassed.. Later that night we learned Oakland police came after one of the community members shown in the video holding a bullhorn..Chris M They claimed he assaulted an officer at the church… If that was the case when and where did that happen and why not arrest him on the spot?

Here’s a video of last night’s Townhall Meeting and dispersal..Please note I’m trying to re-render this so the quality is better… * quick note.. here’s the better quality video.. of last nights confrontation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCQ9F5hypow

New Grand Jury Subpoenas Related to UC-Santa Cruz Investigation

by Will Potter May 15, 2012 Green is the New Red

Resist grand jury witch hunts.

At least two individuals have been subpoenad to a federal grand jury that appears to be investigating a 2008 fire at the home of an animal experimenter at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
One of the people subpoenaed, José Palafox, said:

“I was approached by two FBI agents at the BART Station at 19th and Broadway in Oakland. They asked my name, identified themselves as Carrie and Matt from the FBI, and served me a subpoena to testify before a federal Grand Jury. They informed me that I had been served and left without asking me any other questions….

“I know nothing about the Santa Cruz action but believe this is a political prosecution and part of a government attempt to gather information on activists, specifically involved in the animal rights movement.”

Grand juries are often used to compel political activists to testify about their political beliefs and political associations. When activists enter a grand jury, they check their rights at the door. Those who refuse to take part in these political witch hunts face prison time. [Utah animal rights activist Jordan Halliday is currently in prison for his principled stand .]

In addition to Palafox, at least one other person has been subpoenaed, and another received a visit from the FBI.

Grand juries are secret, but there is some information about the scope of this one. The 2008 fire was also at issue in the prosecution of the “AETA 4″ on animal enterprise terrorism charges (which were all dismissed). And the prosecutor in that case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Elise Becker, is also involved in this grand jury.

I’ll post more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, if you are contacted by the FBI or receive a grand jury subpoena, immediately contact the National Lawyers Guild hotline,  (888) 654-3265. Also, watch this video.

Inmates in Solitary Confinement in California Respond to Prison Policy Reforms

May 1, 2012 Solitary Watch

by Sal Rodriguez

 

Prisoners in California’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) have offered their opinions of the recent reforms of the California prison system’s controversial gang validation policies. In correspondences with Solitary Watch, SHU inmates in Pelican Bay and Corcoran prisons have consistently been critical of the reforms, which among other things reform the gang validation point system and introduce a step-down program in which inmates can  transition out of the SHU. Last month a group of SHU inmates, all of whom are labeled as either members or leaders of prison gangs (Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, Black Guerilla Family), released a counter proposal in response.
The following are excerpts from letters written by prisoners currently in California’s SHUs.

From Kijana Askari (self-portrait above), who has been in the SHU since 1994 after being validated as a member of the Black Guerilla Family:

With regards to the revisions that were done to SHU management gang policies, well, that is exactly what has taken place—”revisions” (e.g. “reform”). Hence, more of the same in that, the revisions have only strengthened CDCR officials power and ability to label and validate every prisoner in CDCR as belonging to a Security Threat Group–e.g. “prison gang.”At the crux of the revisions is a lack of a definitive and “behavioral-based” criteria, as to what actually constitute as being gang activity. Meaning, any and everything can and will still be considered as gang activity, in spite of how innocuous the activity may be.

In addition to this, we still have untrained and unqualified CDCR officers/officials determining and assessing what is “gang activity.” And this point is critical for two very important reasons: 1) There are no qualitative oversight mechanisms in place, meaning there is absolutely nothing to prevent CDCR’s prison guards, gang unit, etc., from being vindictive, retaliatory, punitive, etc., via the application of these “revised” gang management policies; and 2) it has been proven that CDCR’s prison guards and their IGI gang unit staff do not properly investigate the evidence used in each prisoners gang validation–see Lira v. Cate.

And the new revisions do not do anything to correct this.

Kijana Tashiri Askari (Marcus Harrison) #H54077, Pelican Bay State Prison  D3 122 SHU, PO Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95531

From a Pelican Bay SHU inmate who has been in solitary confinement for five years and is currently appealing the gang validation that placed him there:

“We were recently afforded a copy of this proposal. Many of us are getting the chance now to read through and evaluate it. I read through it once and will go through it again. There are many aspects of the step down program that at face value seem to provide far better alternatives to the over 20 year long policy of implementing indeterminate SHU programs. Many of the program objectives and privileges outlined in the proposal at first glance look to be very good and beneficial to a lot of SHU prisoners. However, the gang validation/identification aspect of the proposal continues to present an ongoing issue and problem for many individuals who have been validated and will be validated. Under the criteria that is set forth, it continues to target and identify individuals for long-term SHU placement based on gang affiliation rather than actual gang activity or criminal/illegal conduct.”Which is, has been, and under this proposal will continue to be a significant hardship for many who the CDCR looks to place and keep locked away in the SHU for little to no reason.”

From a Corcoran SHU inmate who has been diagnosed with severe depression:

“We did have an opportunity to see and speak to a couple of representatives from Sacramento who are responsible for crafting language that will reflect the policy change. As we understand there are changes being made to the policy. And the CDCR is in the process of implementing the step down program here at Corcoran SHU. And it is anticipated, according to what we were told, that something would be in place within 60-90 days. At least that’s a target date or time frame.

There was a couple of areas of concern for us. We believe that four years is much too long to be in the step down program. It’s a four year step program, each step is one year. It’s basically an observation program in which you graduate to the next step if you have not been documented as having been involved in gang activity. Just what constitutes gang activity is still being determined.
A lot of guys in Pelican Bay and here have already been in isolation for the past 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 years. Many have been disciplinary free and most were placed in isolation for non-disciplinary reasons. It does not make any sense for guys to have to remain in the SHU.

We believe that those guys that the CDCR (genuinely) intends on placing in general population or non-SHU setting should be placed directly into one.

In light of the struggle (and loss of life) it will be extremely difficult for the CDCR to justify not allowing guys to be released to general population. Or at least be provided some kind of meaningful program in a non-SHU setting.

I was diagnosed with severe depression several years ago.

I don’t know which is worse.

At some point you know that the isolation has affected you. Perhaps permanently. It involves so many different factors. Particularly the isolation itself.

Over the years you have seen other people snap. Human beings cutting themselves. Eating their own waste. Smearing themselves in it. And sometimes throwing it at you. Human beings not just talking out loud to themselves–but screaming at and cursing themselves out.

How could you not be affected by this kind of madness?!”

From a Pelican Bay SHU inmate who has been in solitary confinement since 1988, and participated in the 2011 hunger strikes:

“I fail to see how it is any different from my current SHU term…It did not address the fact that there are prisoners who have been in PBSP-SHU for over 20 years without any kind of serious rule infraction. It is written like every single short corridor prisoner is starting from scratch. In other words, no prisoner should even entertain the idea of leaving SHU for the next four or five years. It sounds like a poorly modified version of the six year inactive status program to me. And the IGI still has control of prisoners’ fate through what is decided through classification, telling them when and where to place us.

Nothing has been gained–they’ve put a different name on the same repressive/torturous measures that have been in effect since the state started locking us up for administrative convenience in extreme solitary confinement isolation. There is absolutely nothing about the step down program that allows a SHU prisoner to work their way out of SHU without the expressed approval of the IGI–the whole program as laid out at present is a bunch of clever words seemingly giving prisoners a way to work our way out of SHU. It’s not! I’ve already been in SHU since 1988, what do I need to work on? What exactly are they going to see in my attitude and actions during the four phases of the step-down program that they haven’t already seen in the past twenty plus years during my extreme isolated confinement for administrative convenience? It just does not make sense.

I feel like the CDCR is clowning us!”

The following is from a Pelican Bay SHU inmate who has been incarcerated for forty years, 35 of which have been spent in the SHU.

“Being a labeled outcast makes it easy to see us no more than a farm animal or dog. Which morally assuages the conscience and culpability of individuals’ roles in our vilification. We are living in the times of the Bogeyman syndrome. The power of fear and mistrust. Suspicion which clouds peoples judgment and common sense. Choosing to be ignorant, unable or unwilling to filter out irrelevant noises and views, they transform into parrots that merely mimic the latest tidbit of information.

I don’t have a positive opinion of the impending SHU policy changes. The basic framework, premise and argument is faulty because phantoms are still used as a justification to subject people to punitive action. I am in SHU for non-disciplinary reasons and have been subjected to punitive isolation based on presumption and fantastic takes sown from the chronicle of the Bogeyman. I have spent 35 years in SHU and I should be unconditionally released to the mainline, especially since I haven’t had any serious rule violation in even twenty-five years except for participation in a hunger strike.”

Thursday (4/26): Urgent Mobilization to Sacramento!

April 24, 2012 Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity

Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity’s mediation team received word yesterday that the CDCR (CA Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) will meet with the mediation team and family member representatives on Thursday at CDCR Headquarters in Sacramento to discuss the CDCR’s proposed regulation changes on SHU (Security Housing Unit) placement. Legislative aides from the State Assembly and Senate will also attend the meeting.

During Thursday’s meeting, Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity’s mediation team and family member representatives will support the hunger strikers, their rejection of CDCR’s proposal, and their five-core demands (Earlier this Spring, shortly after the CDCR released it’s proposal, hunger strikers in the SHU at Pelican Bay rejected the CDCR’s proposal and issued a counter proposal).

We need to show the CDCR & State legislators that the hunger strikers do not stand alone!  Please come to Sacramento Thursday, April 26th, for an urgent rally outside CDCR Headquarters before the meeting.
 

11 UC Davis Students, Professor, Charged for U.S. Bank Blockade

Fri Apr 13 2012 Indybay.org

Supporters of UC Davis Protesters Say, "Drop All Charges on the Banker'$ Dozen"

Just months after UC Davis police pepper sprayed seated students in the face during a protest against university privatization and police brutality, Chancellor Linda Katehi's administration is trying to send some of the same students to prison for their alleged role in protests that led to the closure of a US Bank branch on campus.

On March 29th, weeks after an anti-privatization action against US Bank ended with the closure of the bank’s campus branch, 11 UC Davis students and one professor received orders to appear at Yolo County Superior Court. District Attorney Jeff Reisig is charging campus protesters with 20 counts each of obstructing movement in a public place and one count of conspiracy. If convicted, the protesters could face up to 11 years each in prison, and $1 million in damages. Support has been requested for their arraignment on April 27th.

Last year, UC Davis and US Bank entered a relationship. The deal was that US Bank would provide some money each year to UC Davis, an amount based on how many students opened up accounts with US Bank, in exchange for Davis leasing an office to the bank in the Student Union and issuing new student ID cards, ones with a US Bank logo, that could be used as debit cards. This is a deal that benefits both sides, US Bank gets a captive group of possible customers and UC Davis gets some cash. The only people who do not benefit are the students. The logic of privatization is most clear when a student ID card is branded by its corporate sponsor.

11 UC Davis Students, Professor, Charged for U.S. Bank Blockade | Support The Davis Dozen! Drop All Charges!

Kevin Cooper on the "SAFE California Act" : "No Thank You"

April 4, 2012 Free Kevin Cooper

By Kevin Cooper

I have been asked what I think about "The SAFE California Act," which is being pushed as a real alternative to this state’s death penalty. I have been asked by activists, death row inmates, and certain family members of death row inmates. I have also asked myself this same question. After all, it is our future which is being voted on by the people of California in November 2012.

I must add this. At no time was I, or to my knowledge, any man or woman who resides on death row within this state asked our opinion about the SAFE California Act by the sponsors of this initiative, the people who bank rolled it, or the people who collected signatures in support of it. I wonder why that is?

I am personally against this initiative, and I do not support it for a couple different reasons. First and foremost, this ‘Act’ is just another version of the death penalty. We who will be affected by it will still be living in inhumane conditions.

We who are on death row will also lose our legal habeas and habeas appeal process that we have and are currently entitled to under the law. So we are in fact taking a step backwards in our ability to challenge our convictions. We are also having to take our fight for our collective human rights to another level. What I mean by this is, Level IV prisons within the State of California are some of the worst prisons in the world! They are worse than death row in the violence that takes place, in the lack of programs, including educational programs, they stay on lockdown, and many families cannot get to these isolated prisons to visit their loved ones.

I also look at this through the historical eyes of how people of African descent have been continually locked up within this country. For example, those of us who know the truth about this country’s history, and acknowledge this truth have to admit the following . . .

When President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation into law freeing the Slaves, he did not free any person who was duly convicted of a crime. He left them in Slave status. There has never been an amendment to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in order to change this Constitution. Therefore, here in the 21st Century, every Man, Woman, and Child who has been duly convicted of a crime is still a Slave, and is living in the same status as a Slave.

What does this have to do with the SAFE California Act? This 21st Century Act requires, just as Slavery did in the 18th and 19th centuries did, that we who are imprisoned under this Act will have to work for basically nothing. Any money that we make, the majority of it will be taken from us against our will and given to the state. Any money that our family, friends, or attorney(s) may give us, money that is not even ours, will not all be given to us, because the majority of it will be given to the state without our permission as well! This is not fair to our families, who are poor people, as we are! "Isn’t taking our families’ and friends’ money and giving it to the state without their permission called theft?"

We are expected to live the rest of our natural lives under these conditions. My ancestors had to do (LWOP), life without parole, on the thousands of plantations in this country back in the day. They didn’t like it then, and I ain’t going to like it now!! These modern day prisons are just as nasty and inhumane as the plantations of yesteryear, and just as deadly. The system and the people who run and control them are just as cold hearted, and unforgiving as any plantation owner or overseer. Yet, we are told that times have changed! This lock them up and throw away the key mentality is as old and as cold as this country. If this becomes the law of this state, we cannot expect for it to change, we will be out of sight and out of mind.

Whenever that happens, human beings in our situation always have their human rights violated by the powers that be! "Please" don’t get me wrong, as I have my say concerning this SAFE California Act. I am not ‘for’ Capital Punishment either! But, I do know that there has be be a better way to end Capital Punishment within this state than the SAFE California Act.

As a person who reads and studies African American history, I can honestly say to you that this is deja vu, history is repeating itself with this Act. The vast majority of Slaves felt that life on those plantations was a fate worse than death. I wholeheartedly agree, because life within this modern day plantation is too! But, not only are we to spend the rest of our lives living and working in this place called hell, we are going to have to pay for it with our own monies as well!

To this, and all else within that SAFE California Act, I say "No Thank You!"

Kevin Cooper was sentenced to death in 1985 and maintains his innocence. In 2008, five federal judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals signed an 82-page dissenting opinion that begins: "The State of California may be about to execute an innocent man." 565 F.3d 581 He has exhausted all his legal remedies and should the lethal injection litigation settle in California, Kevin is one of the 14 currently in line for imminent execution barring the governor and California Supreme Court granting him a pardon or clemency.

Don’t miss the recently released true crime story: "Scapegoat: The Chino Hills Murders and the Framing of Kevin Cooper" by J. Patrick O’Connor, editor and publisher of Crime Magazine. Available online through major booksellers.

Pelican Bay SHU Short Corridor Collective’s Rejection of CDCR Proposal

March 27, 2012 Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity

Pelican Bay Human Rights Movement

Preface:

The PBSP-SHU short corridor prisoner representatives have read, carefully considered, and hereby oppose the CDCR’s March 1, 2012, the Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy proposal (hereinafter proposal), based on the following reasons. Additionally, we do hereby present our counter proposal (attached hereto).

One, Summary of issues

Beginning in May of 2-11, the PBSP-SHU short corridor prisoners collective presented CDCR with a ‘Formal Notice’ of intent to go on a peaceful protest hunger strike beginning July 1, 2011, in order to expose for force policy changes regarding our subjection to 25 years of torturous human rights abuse in California SHU and Ad Seg. units. The Formal Notice included a list of “five core demands” and a “Formal Complaint” summarizing the facts and circumstances leading up, and supporting the basis for putting our lives on the line to stop the torture of our families and us.

During negotiations conducted in late July, August, and October of 2011 top CDCD administrators several times admitted, to PBSP-SHU representatives and to our mediation team, that the five core demands made by prisoners were reasonable. The CDCR made repeated assurances that the Five Core Demands would be addressed via meaningful substantive changes, responsive to the specific demands as soon as possible. The five core demands are summarized here for the purpose of clarity.[1]

1. Eliminate group punishments. Instead, practice individual accountability. When an individual prisoner breaks a rule, the prison often punishes a whole group of prisoners of the same race. This policy has been applied to keep prisoners in the SHU indefinitely and to make conditions increasingly harsh.

2. Abolish the debriefing policy and modify active/inactive gang status criteria. Prisoners are accused of being active or inactive participants of prison gangs using false or highly dubious evidence, and are then sent to long-term isolation (SHU). They can escape these tortuous conditions only if they “debrief,” that is, provide information on gang activity. Debriefing produces false information (wrongly landing other prisoners in SHU, in an endless cycle) and can endanger the lives of debriefing prisoners and their families.

3. Comply with the recommendations of the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons (2006) regarding an end to long-term solitary confinement. This bipartisan commission specifically recommended to “make segregation a last resort” and “end conditions of isolation.” Yet as of May 18, 2011, California kept 3,259 prisoners in SHUs and hundreds more in Administrative Segregation waiting for a SHU cell to open up. Some prisoners have been kept in isolation for more than thirty years.

4. Provide adequate and nutritious food. Prisoners report unsanitary conditions and small quantities of food that do not conform to prison regulations. There is no accountability or independent quality control of meals.

5. Expand and provide constructive programs and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates. The hunger strikers are pressing for opportunities “to engage in self-help treatment, education, religious and other productive activities…” Currently these opportunities are routinely denied, even if the prisoners want to pay for correspondence courses themselves. Examples of privileges the prisoners want are: one phone call per week, and permission to have sweat-suits and watch caps.

With respect to core demands #1,2,3,and 5, Policy and Practice of basis for indefinite SHU isolation averages(s) available for gaining one’s release therefrom, and the progressively punitive nature of SHU/Ad Seg conditions, it’s important to remember, many SHU prisoners have been held indefinitely, and subject to sensory deprivation, and every other abuse imaginable, that occurs in such hidden hell holes, for between ten to forty years and counting, solely bases on what CDCR-OCS refers to as their “intelligence system” i.e., debriefer allegations and innocent associational activity without ever actually being charged and found guilty of committing a criminal gang-related act.

Thus, the parties understood CDCR’s intelligence system for indefinite SHU placement was one of the major issues of concern to the class of SHU prisoners and their families, subjected to such long term isolation and abuse, without being charged and found guilty of committing a criminal act by credible evidence, and after the due process such formal charges would require. The parties all understood that major, meaning, and fundamental, change away from the above referenced “intelligence” based system … to a “behavioral” based system. A system defined as one in which a prisoner who engaged in “criminal gang activity” that is supported by “credible evidence” will be subject to sanctions (Per CDCR, Title 15, §§ 3312-3315, et seq., i.e., rule violation reports, referral for prosecution, determinate SHU term, and corresponding loss of privileges—after receiving due process and being found guilty of the criminal act alleged). On March 9, 2012, CDCR issued a press statement and presented their proposed gang management policy changes (the Proposal) in response to our peaceful protest activity and related five de3mands and negotiation process referenced above.

Two. CDCR’s Proposal Is Not Acceptable

The PBSP-SHU short corridor prisoner reps have read and carefully considered CDCR’s March 2112 proposal and we hereby summarize our opposition to the proposal. This rejections is based upon the CDCR’s failure to act in good faith, as demonstrated by the mockery made of our agreements (referenced in above section I), including Secretary Cate’s delegation of the policy change process to the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS), who resorted to the same twenty-five years plus fear tactics of California prison gangs being the “worst of the worst” in order to propagate, manipulate, and promote their own underlying agenda, which is to increase the power, staffing, and money of the OCS office within CDCR. (See, e.g., Proposal, P.5, at last paragraph; “the continuing evolution of our existing intelligence network…”). It should be noted that the OCS is the gang intelligence/goon squad in charge of SSU/IGI units within CDCR. This propagandist-manipulative abuse of state power—includes the ongoing use of long-term sensory deprivation, designed to coerce prisoners to become state informants, while also making a ton of money from such SHU/AD Seg torture units.

The Proposal seeks to manipulate the law makers and the tax payers into allowing CDCR-OCS to significantly expand on the use of these SHU/Ad Seg units, via the creation of new criteria and classes of what they term Security Threat Groups (STG) involved in “criminal gang behavior” (See Proposal in general).

The CDCR-OCS is asking the law makers and tax payers to allow them to continue to violate thousands of prisoners human rights, including the use of torture with impunity bases on false propaganda scare tactics exemplified below.

The Proposal (and related CDCR press statement) begins with propaganda claiming California prison gangs are “the most sophisticated and violent in the nation—connected to major criminal activity in the community, and having influence on nearly every prison system within the United States” (Proposal pgs. 2,3,5 and Press Statement of March 9, 2012). They also claim their current torture practices, those utilized for over 25 years, “have been successful in reducing the impact of sophisticated gang members have in CDCR facilities” … “by removing them from the general prison population” (Proposal, p.2 at paragraph 2, 3). These are the same manipulative tactics used by OCS for twenty-five years. They’ve gotten away with it at a cost of hundreds of millions of tax payers’ dollars, and with the destruction/severe physical-psychological damage long term subjection to torture units has caused thousands of prisoners and their loved ones outside prison. And all of this in the face of the facts and evidence to prove CDCR-OCS propaganda-manipulative statements are false. In spite of being subject to 25 to 40 years of extreme security surveillance by alleged gang expert special agents the majority of the prisoners classified a prison gang members have never been charged or found guilty of any criminal gang related acts! Moreover, a statistical study of the CDCR’s practice during the twenty-five year period prior to imposition of the current policy of placing all prison gang affiliates in SHU and comparing this data with the current 25 year SHU policy will prove that CDCR general population prisoners have been significantly more violent and out of control since the current policy has been in place.

CDCR-OCS are directly at fault for this 25-years of madness that continues to take place in this state’s general population facilities, including staff manipulating prisoners against each other to further the staff’s agenda (a lot of riots or other violence is useful in supporting demands for extra hazard pay, overtime, etc.).

CDCR-OCS’s gang management policy of the last 25 years is a one hundred percent failure, and their march 2012 proposed changes are not acceptable because they seek to increase the use of torture units and do not change the many of dealing with those classified as prison gang members at all, which is a blatant violation of the parties agreement(s) during the negotiation process last year. This is shown by reference to the following examples:

1. The Proposal wants to change the classification of “prison gang member” into “security threat group I” member (STG-1 member), while continuing the current policy and practice of keeping these alleged gang members in SHU indefinitely, using the same alleged “evidence” that’s been used for the past 25 years. The Proposal specifies that “… STG I members will remain in SHU indefinitely, until they successfully complete the debriefing process … or the ‘step-down program’ consisting of a minimum of four years to complete all four steps.” Notably, it states, “…STG-I members will remain in SHU and will not be able to gain release to the general prison population via step down program based on IGI’s confirmation of participation in criminal gang behavior.” Confirmation requires “either (1) a guilty finding in a serious rule violation report and/or (2) any document that clearly describes the gang behavior and is referred to the institution I.G.I. for confirmation.” Number 2 is in reference to “documentation” consisting of statements from confidential inmate informants/debriefers, staff’s alleged observations, and other forms of innocent associational type behavior (See Proposal, at page 7, 17-25,3). This is the exact same process CDCR-OCS has used and abused for 25 years. This changes nothing for the prisoners classified as prison gang members, which is a majority of those in PBSP short corridor, most of whom have been in SHU for between 10 and 40 years already—without ever being formally charged and found guilty of a criminal gang act.
2. The Proposal fails to make meaningful, substantive changes responsive to core demands 1, 2, and 3, (and does so unsatisfactorily re: Core Demand #5, e.gl. mockery of our request for weekly phone calls, no contact visits for step 3 and four, etc., etc.). We see no point in having four steps—each requiring a minimum of one year to complete. And the vague wording regarding the rest of the Proposal leaves much room for abuse and manipulation—which CDCR-OCS staff have a long history of doing. All of which makes CDCR-OCS proposal unacceptable.

Three, PBSP-SHU Short Corridor Prisoner Representatives

Based on CDCR’s lack of good faith in the process of changing their illegal policies and practices regarding the use and abuse of long-term isolation/torture, and for the reasons briefly summarized above, together with our belief that the CDCR-OCS proposal is so blatantly out-of-step with what was agreed during negotiations between July through October of 2011, as to con statute an intentional stall tactic designed to prolong our subjection to those torturous conditions.

Therefore, we hereby respectfully present our attached counter proposal—to be implemented without further delay.

Date: 3-19-2012

Respectfully Submitted by:

Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa – Dewberry C-35671

Arturo Castellanos – C-17275

Todd Ashker – C-58191

Antonio Guillen – P-81948

---

[1] This version of the Five Core Demands was taken from http://www.change.org/petitions/support-pelican-bay-shu-prisoners-five-core-demands-hunger-strike

Pelican Bay SHU Inmates Respond to California’s Proposed Prisons Reforms

March 27, 2012 Solitary Watch

by Sal Rodriguez

In response to reforms recently outlined by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding gang validation, a group of inmates held in Pelican Bay State Prison’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) submitted a “counter proposal” to prison activists.

Asserting that the CDCR “is asking law makers and taxpayers to allow them to continue to violate thousands of prisoners human rights” and that the current system is based on “false propaganda scare tactics” the inmates claim that the “proposed changes are not acceptable, because they seek to increase the use of torture units and do not change the manner of dealing with those classified as prison gang members at all.” Central to their rebuke of the reforms is the controversial debriefing process, which the inmates claim are “arbitrary” and “unfair.”

They describe the negative effects of solitary confinement:

Long term solitary confinement by itself is an irrational, and unjustifiable instrument of corrections and when the state of California allowed the prison-industrial complex (PIC) to implement such sensory deprivation for over five (5) years, they (CDCR) have recklessly modified the genetic features of what are human beings social characteristics, and by suppressing a humans natural social behaviors it changes the thought process of targeted prisoners by removing objective reality. Once deprivation sets-in, the second signal system (subjective reality) of the targeted prisoners thoughts will supersede the first signal system, which then produces: Irrationalism, Cannibalism, Racism, Chauvinism, Terrorism, Conformism and Obscurantism….the targeted prisoners of deprivation believes they’re no longer accountable for their behavior and actions.

Further, they write:

Sensory deprivation has a secondary phenomena, which are social deprivation, cultural deprivation, ethical deprivation, and emotional deprivation. No sane targeted prisoners can escape this type of deprivation that comes from long term internment in a supermax control unit. The science of deprivation has been perfected by the handlers to operate with devastating force.

The inmates, as they have stated before, propose a “Max B Management Control Unit” program as used in San Quentin’s Max B unit decades ago. According to the model proposed by the inmates, the program would be based on a three phase “step program.” Inmates under this model would have access to greater programming and be subject to classification reviews every 90 days. This was previously noted in an Office of the Inspector General Report in October 2011, in which it was asserted, based on the experience of a former CDCR executive that the “Max B program would be considered irresponsible” given the “numerous inmate assaults and prison disruptions associarted with the Max B model.”

It is unclear whether such disagreements may lead to further action by California inmates in solitary, particularly after the death of one hunger striker, Christian Gomez, at California State Prison, Corcoran in February.