Working to Extend Democracy to All 
Volume
V
l
1
1, N
Number
b 2

April
A
il 2012

PELICAN BAY HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT
Formal Response to the CDCR’s Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification
and Management Strategy proposal
Pelican Bay Human Rights
Movement
1. Preface
2. P.B.H.R.M. co-proposal
Preface:
he 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).

T

I: Summary of issues
Beginning in May of 2-11, the PBSPSHU 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 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. (Often warm clothing is
denied, though the cells and exercise cage
can be bitterly cold.) All of the privileges
mentioned in the demands are already allowed at other Super Max prisons (in the
federal prison system and other states). All
of the privileges mentioned in the demands
are already allowed at other Super Max
prisons (in the federal prison system and
other states).
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.
II: 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 Cat’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
2

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 twentyfive 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 CDCROCS 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:
A. 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
¡Roca!

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.
B. 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 CDCROCS proposal unacceptable.
III: 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 CDCROCS 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.
Dated________________________
Respectfully Submitted by (Negotiators)
Names at the end of PBHRM.

Pelican Bay Human Rights
Movement
(Proposal)
Modern-Management Control Unit
(MMCU)
his proposal starts by looking at
concrete programs that have been
implemented by CDCR and functioned effectively, and by examining how
they can be immediately adapted to the
present-day PBSP and all 180 prison structures.
In the 1970s and 1980s the Max-B management control unit programs, such as
Chino, DVI, and San Quentin Max-B, afforded as much programming as the Gen-

T

Vol. 1 Number 2

eral Population (GP) prisoners had, and
held individual prisoners accountable, who
failed to program within the MCU setting.
Today (2012) there are still some small
Max-B type programs functioning in a few
CDCR facilities under different names, but
segregated with the same objectives.
The new 180 design prison complexes
are perfectly structured for the necessary
control setting and for meeting all the security requirements needed to make this modern (Max-B MCU) type of unti(s) more durable and cost-effective to operate for the
California tax payers.
PBSP “B” Control Program
PBSP “B” facility control/behavior program (facility) for the general population
prototype can be implemented as a pilot
program, and used at other 180 design
prison complexes. PBSP “B” facility can
serve a dual purpose of allowing for a short
period of decompression time for validated
SHU/Ad Seg prisoners who have served
decades in super-max SHUs. This applies
to prisoners who have not received any
serious CDCR-RVR 115s for any individual behavioral misconduct, demonstrating
factually reliable evidence of the prisoner
currently engaging in criminal gang activity that shall and can be prosecuted as a
criminal offense within California’s state
or federal courts.
The second purpose of this M-MCU
program shall allow validated prisoners
to successfully complete the 90 day step
program; this is a three phase program for
re-entry back in the general population of
a prison setting, within the new modern
structural environment of the 180 design
prisons like the old MCU program (similar
to what existed in the mid-1970s and 1080s
at Chino, DVI, San Quentin Max-B units,
and old Folsom state prison—i.e., restricted housing units).
PBSP “B” Facility is an Ideal Institution
for the (Max-B, MCU) Program for release
to the (G.P.), because it is in a level IV
Maximum Security Prison, with an existing Policy Requiring that inactive affiliates
be housed on close B status within a level
IV-prison setting, for a period of observation that shall be no longer than 12 months.
Upon completion of that observation period, the prisoner shall be transferred to another control/behavior unit (CBU) Facility
to G.P. in the absence of real safety needs
(i.e. a specific conduct/behavior act), the
prisoner may be housed in a facility consistent with his classification score.

PBSP “B” Facility is comprised of eight
(8) housing units with one main exercise
yard, that is divided into three (3) smaller
separate yards, and approximately twenty
cells per. Section (i.e. A, B, and C) for
building one (1) and building two (2) is a
repeat of building one. Each housing unit
has three separate housing sections, with an
approximate capacity of forty prisoners in
each section. Thus, each housing unit has
room for approximately 120 prisoners, and
a facility capacity of 900 prisoners. Additionally, each housing unit has a separate
concrete wall enclosed yard, with a capacity of twenty (20) to forty (40) prisoners,
during their (prisoners) exercise periods.
There are generally two (2) or three (3),
exercising periods each day. Prisoners can
effectively be segregated to fit security and
safety standards, like what existed under
the past management control units. All segregated programming can be operated by a
schedule of Group A, Group B, and Group
C.
Modern Management Control Facility
(MMCF/G.P.) Has Three Phases:
• Phase I: Initial Placement into (MMCF)
from the (SHU) shall be for a minimum
of 30 days, with no group programming,
no designated work group participation
allowed non-contact visits.
• Phase II: Programming within a prisoners particular classification assigned to
group A, B, or C. Eating in Dining Hall.
Phase II Placement shall be for a minimum of 60 days, with contact visits.
• Phase III: The successful completion
of 90 days (MMCF/GP) Programming,
meaning a prisoner has full access to one
of the main exercise yards with his assigned group.
In Phase I, the classification committee
will designate the assigned work group;
phase II work group A1, A2, B privilege
Group B; Phase II work group A1, A2, B
privileged work group.
1. Classification should be every 90 days
2. Telephone access: One call per month
3. Contact visits
4. Educational programs
5. Canteen items not to exceed one month’s
draw of assigned privilege group
6. Conjugal visits
7. Feeding in units dining halls
8. Transfer C.A.T. Programs
9. Prisoners should be able to another institution with a (MMCF) to G.P. after one
year, in order to be closer to family.
Additional Requirements and Sup3

port for our Proposal
A. IGI, OCS should discontinue the arbitrary, unfair practice of relying on allegations from confidential informant/debriefers to keep prisoners in SHU and/or from
advancing out of SHU, unless such allegations are supported by credible evidence,
and thereby result in issuance of a CDCR115 rule violation report, and required due
process thereafter whom himself been denied inactive status.
B. Discontinue relying on innocent associational activity, such as: roster list, group
petitions, address books, poems, drawings,
portraits literatures, published books, manuscripts, signing of birthday cards, signing
of condolence cards, legal work, chrono’s
for talking, envelopes with a validated prisoners name on it, etc; unless IGI can disclose undisputed evidence during inactive
review, that the prisoner under review has
written to another on a roster list who is
promoting current gang activity; written to
another validated prisoner’s address, who
is promoting current gang activity. The
same proof of evidence shall apply to poems, drawings, cards literature, etc; showing the prisoner how his written material
has promoted “current gang activity”, gang
violence, etc!
It is known that there are IGI and ISU
and OCS officials, that are deliberately
(during the inactive reviews), misinterpreting what constitutes current gang activity;
as well as, relying on flimsy information
that contains no credible evidence or documentation about the prisoner who is under
review, showing him to be planning, organizing, threatening, soliciting or committing any criminal gang acts. (If there was
credible evidence supporting this a CDCR
115 RVR is required).
The reason for this erroneous practice is
because there is an attitude to use the inactive review as a means to continue denying
specific validated members a release from
SHU to the mainstream General Population
(G.P.).
Documented evidence clearly demonstrates the opposition (e.g. OCS) is not in
favor of giving better programming opportunities to SHU prisoners, like those afforded to the General Population prisoners.
Prisoners have loudly and clearly called
for the end to group punishment and for a
focus on individual behavior instead. They
have voiced their willingness to accept individual accountability for individual conduct. They (prisoners) will get that under
this plan, and individual who fails to re4

main in compliance with the PBSP “B” facility (MMCF) structural setting will return
to the (SHU/adseg).
The current long term (SHU) prisoners
have already fulfilled a step-down program
during the decades spent in supermax/
SHU’s. They should not have to do more
to earn their release into a PBSP “B” facility (MMCF) program setting (like what existed in the mid-1970’s and 1980’s in what
was called management control units within the (SHU-structure) The security level
today in the 180 level IV prison is much
more controlled and therefore suitable, for
a (MMCF) to be easily implemented and
effectively operated.
This document is in direct relation to the
(P.B.H.R.M) to address the illegal ware
housing of prisoners held in California Torture Chambers (i.e. solitary confinement,
SHU, and indefinite isolation), which is
stated in the “Five (5) Core Demands”, that
M. Cate CDCR Secretary, Undersecretary
S. Kernan (former) and undersecretary
Terri McDonald (current) have all agreed
that we (the prisoners held within indefinite
isolation (i.e. SHU) should have had coming, and we shall be afforded all of the Prisoners “Five (5) Core Demands.”; which is
supported by the California Governor E.
Brown. These demands are all reasonable.
Prisoners currently held under the indeterminate (SHU) term, shall be relocated
into this (PBSP “B” Facility-MMCF), and
shall be authorized to receive the same personal property items for prisoners assigned
to the BMU see Title 15, CCR 3334(e) (g).
Evidence proves, CDCR (SHU/Adseg)
sensory deprivation from Solitary Confinement (conditioning causes) harm to prisoners… this illegal torture must end.
The science of sensory deprivation
was theoretically structured in the federal
prison in Marion, Illinois in the 1970’s. It
was the first known behavior modification
program in the United States. There were
no pre-conditional snitching (debriefing)
requirements connected to being released
from said program. In California, at Pelican
Bay State Prison Security Housing Unit –
SHU), under the region of the Prison Intelligence Units (PIU)= SSU, ISU, LEIU,
IGI and OCS (which is a qualitative fact of
a high intensity (enhanced) sensory deprivation program that was implemented in
December 1989, against a targeted class
of prisoner between the years of 1990
and 2011). Hundreds of targeted prisoners in the principal ethnicity groups of
New Afrikans (Black), Northern Mexican,

White and Southern Mexican, Hereafter
(N.A./N.M./W. & S.M.) Were tortured into
debriefing. The facts of sensory deprivation being a form of torture, is linked its
application and the results. For the sake
of argument, the American Medical Association Encyclopedia, Page 1103, defines
“Sensory Deprivation” as a form of torture.
The experimenting with sensory deprivation in California has far succeeded the
federal behavioral modification program.
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 behavior, it changes
the thought process of the 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 than produces: Irrationalism,
Cannibalism, Racism, Chauvinism, Terrorism, Conformism and Obscurantism. The
process of deprivation passes through three
(3) phases 1) Judgment, 2) Awareness, and
3) Fatigue. Once the three (3) phases are
tapped into the physiological basis for the
targeted prisoners, association and loyalties becomes short-circuited. The targeted
prisoners of deprivation believes they’re no
longer accountable for their behavior and
actions.
Sensory deprivation has a secondary
phenomenon, 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 interment
in super-max control unit. The science of

Prisoner
Artists!
Prison
ArtArt
is ais
nonprofit
Prison
a nonwebsite.
It chargesthat
a 10
profit website
percent
feeaiften
yourperart
charges
or
craftservice
sells. Send
SASE
cent
fee
if
for a free brochure. No
your art or craft
SASE, no brochure. This
sells.
Send
a SASE
offer
void
where
profor free
hibited
bybrochure.
prison rules.

Sell Your Art
On the Web
Sell prisonercreated art or
crafts (except
writings). Send
only copies, no
originals!
Prison Art Project
P.O. Box 47439
Seattel, WA 98146
www.prisonart.org
sales@prisonart.org
206-271-5003

¡Roca!

deprivation has been perfected by the handlers to operate with devastating force.
The techniques of torture by deprivation
are used by United States Military Intelligence and the Political Police Interrogators,
to break down the will Power of the targeted
prisoners. They (CDCR) have conducted a
war of attrition against the mind and body
of thousands of prisoners over a prolong
period of time. There’s a misconception
that “mental” torture not being as brutal
and barbaric as physical torture. Military
Intelligence Experts will attest to the fact
that mental torture is more effective than
physical torture especially inside the prison
theater. #1) Physical torture produces short
range returns #2) Mental torture produces
long range returns.
Admittedly, from the overview of sensory deprivation, there is no separation between physical torture and mental torture.
Torture is two a (2) – edged sward and can
be an effective way towards (1) exacting
punishment, or (2) revenge; and of course
the objective being to obtain a confession,
or information from the subject, we know
that (PBSP-SHU) was architecturally deprivation impact. Its features are:
1) The cage pods have no windows the
targeted prisoners will go decades without
ever seeing the natural physical scenery
(i.e. trees, mountain, grass, dirt, plants,
birds or wildlife) of the objective world.
2) The cage pods have several strategic
secret type of capabilities that are used for
disposal of human beings, incineration, refrigeration and or gas chamber), the degree
of hotness (heat of combustion) and coldness (freezing point) or gaseous asphyxiate.
3) Ventilation shaft designed to circulate,
stale and noxious air from cage to cage,
poor air quality
4) High intensity impulse noise trapped
in a vacuum.
The prison intelligence unit (PIU) has
an established profile of every targeted
prisoners socio-psychological characteristics (Dictatorial attitude, level of selfdiscipline, personality, group orientation,
dominance, submissiveness, paranoid, sociability non-compatibilities). The (PIU)
establish the racial- ethic social ecology
make up of every eight (8) cell-pod. It is essential to the intensities of deprivations that
the social polarity atmosphere influence the
phenomena effects. It does play a significant role in the bringing about the deterioration of the targeted prisoners. No targeted
prisoners can escape the transformation of
Vol. 1 Number 2

objective reality into subjective reality of
self-preservation. The external world must
become immaterial in the targeted prisoner
minds if they are to survive the War of Attrition.
During the last six (6) months of 2011,
the California prisoners was compelled to
get involved with two (2) peaceful nonviolent hunger strikers, to get this Country
President Obama and Governor Brown of
California, and CDCR Secretary M. Cate
know, that this country (U.S.A.) and the
State of California do infact torture State
Prisoners, and later drive some to the State
of Sensory Deprivation through the Personal of Prison Intelligence units/military
Intelligence agents and Political Police
Tormentors… Now, over the Past nine
(9) months, July 2011 to March 2012, we
(Prisoners) have lost three (3) fellow prisoners, whom we shall honor them for their
courageous struggle for our (PBHRM) call
for Justice and Humanity.
In Memory Of:
1. ....Johnny Owen Vick – PBSP Adseg
2. ....Hozel Alanzo Blanchard – Calipat
Adseg
3. Christian Gomez – CSP-COR Adseg
These are just recent men (Human Beings) who were subjected to the inhumane
treatment in solitary confinement who
dedicated their lives to our struggle to be
liberated from these torture chambers. We
dedicate to them our commitment to continue our struggle.
Respectfully submitted by:
Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa – Dewberry
C-35671
Arturo Castellanos – C-17275
Todd Ashker – C-58191
Antonio Guillen – P-81948
Date: 3-19-2019

Hunger Strike ...... Continued from page 4
Additional speakers will include:
• Hans Bennett, Independent journalist
and co-founder of Journalists for Mumia
• Terry Kupers, Institute Professor at The
Wright Institute in Berkeley, California
• Manuel La Fontaine, Northern California Regional Organizer for All of Us or
None
• Aaron Mirmalek, Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee Oakland
• Kiilu Nyasha, Independent journalist
and former member of the Black Panther Party
• Tahtanerriah Sessoms-Howell, Youth
Organizer for All of Us Or None
• Luis “Bato” Talamantez, California Prison Focus and one of the San Quentin 6
• Azadeh Zohrabi, Co-Editor-in-Chief
of the Hastings Race and Poverty Law
Journal
• And more (Full speaker bios below).
In addition, two short films will be featured: The Gray Box: A Multimedia Investigation, by Susan Greene, The Dart Society, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment,
by Claire Schoen, for the AFSC Stopmax
Campaign.
[Event notes: Hastings is on the corner
of Hyde and McAllister, two blocks from
the Civic Center BART station. The Hyde
Street side entrance is wheelchair accessible. Refreshments will be served and signed
books will be for sale. This event is free and
open to the public.
Donations for prisoner support will be
gratefully accepted.]
End of Press Release

NON SCIENTIFIC POLL

I

think the comrades inside would agree that the lose network of communities on the
streets have done a wonderful job of amplifying the voice of prisoners. We out here
have not always been on the same page, but we’ve always been in the same book—all
moving in the direction of amplifying that voice. It would be nice to take a poll like the
Gallop folks do, but they pick who they’re going to talk to and I suppose I would too (we
all come from different villages and are interested in the positions of people more like
ourselves). Anyway, the next best thing to a biased poll would be to measure the message
history of the Prison Hunger Strike Solidarity group on Yahoo. It’s not so exact but it will
give you an idea of the level of activity.
Message History

5

THE OUTER LIMITS OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT: A PUBLIC FORUM TO
SUPPORT THE CALIFORNIA PRISONER
HUNGER STRIKE
[This piece was copied from a website
supporting the Angola Three. http://angola3news.blogspot.com/2012/03/outer-limits-of-solitary-confinement.html]

Press Release
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Outer Limits of Solitary Confinement: A Public Forum to Support the California Prisoner Hunger Strike
Release Date: March 24, 2012
Contact: Marina Drummer
International Coalition to Free the Angola Three
Marina@communityfuturescollective.
org
(707) 486-6806
www.angola3.org
www.angola3news.com
The Outer Limits of Solitary Confinement:
A Public Forum to Support the California Prisoner Hunger Strike
Friday, April 6, 2012, 6pm - 8pm
UC Hastings College of the Law
Louis B. Mayer Lounge
198 McAllister Street
San Francisco
(San Francisco) --This free San Francisco event organized by the International
Coalition to Free the Angola 3 will mark 40

6

years of solitary confinement for Herman
Wallace and Albert Woodfox of the Angola
3, by exploring the expansion and overuse
of solitary confinement, and mobilizing
support for the Amnesty International Petition to remove them from solitary confinement and support for the California Hunger
Strikers. Includes Keynote with Angola
3’s Robert H. King, 2 films and additional
speakers.
The International Coalition to Free the
Angola Three is presenting a free public
forum and film screening entitled “The
Outer Limits of Solitary Confinement,” at
UC Hastings College of the Law, Louis B.
Mayer Lounge, 198 McAllister Street, San
Francisco, on Friday, April 6, 2012, from
6pm - 8pm, and co-hosted by the Hastings
Race and Poverty Law Journal and the
Hastings chapter of the National Lawyers
Guild.
The International Coalition to Free the
Angola 3 stands in solidarity with the
courageous prisoners that recently initiated hunger strikes throughout California
prisons. The event will examine how the
torture and wrongful convictions of the
Angola 3 are part of a much larger problem throughout US prisons. With presentations from several speakers involved with
supporting the hunger strikers, the audience will be presented with many ways in
which they too can lend their support in the
fight against solitary confinement and other
forms of torture in California prisons.
The keynote speaker will be Robert H.
King, of the Angola 3, who was released in
2001 when his conviction was overturned,
after 29 years of continuous solitary confinement. King says today that “being in
prison, in solitary was terrible. It was a
nightmare. My soul still cries from all that
I witnessed and endured. It does more than
cry- it mourns, continuously.”
Since his release, Robert H. King has
worked tirelessly to support the other two
members of the Angola 3, Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, who have been
in solitary confinement since April 17,
1972. This coming April 17, which marks
the 40th anniversary of their solitary confinement, King will be joined by Amnesty
International and other supporters at the
Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge

to present Amnesty International’s petition to Governor Bobby Jindal demanding
that Wallace and Woodfox be immediately
released from solitary confinement. Read
more about Amnesty International’s Angola 3 campaign, here.
At the UC Hastings event, King will
talk about the Amnesty International petition demanding transfer from solitary and
the broader struggle to release Wallace and
Woodfox from prison altogether. Interviewed in a recent video by Amnesty International, King says about Wallace and
Woodfox: “All evidence shows that they
were targeted simply for being members of
the Black Panther Party. There is really no
evidence, forensic, physical, or otherwise,
linking them to the crime. When I think
about the ten years in which I’ve had time
to be out here, that is ten more years that
they are there.”
In their investigative report, Amnesty
International similarly concluded that “no
physical evidence links Woodfox and Wallace to the murder.” Even further: “potentially favorable DNA evidence was lost.

The convictions were based on questionable inmate testimony…it seems prison officials bribed the main eyewitness into giving statements against the men. Even the
widow of the prison guard has expressed
skepticism, saying in 2008, ‘If they did not
do this – and I believe that they didn’t –
they have been living a nightmare for 36
years!’”
Hunger Strike .......... Continued on page 5

(Photo of the Angola 3. From left to right:
Herman Wallace, Robert H. King, and Albert
Woodfox.)

¡Roca!

AN EVENT FLYER

Vol. 1 Number 2

7

Editorial Ramblings
don’t know if the previous (first) issue
of ¡Roca! was well received or not, as
I just sent it out about two weeks ago
and have not received a response from
anyone as of yet. Also, I just finished the
next issue of Prison Focus newspaper; it
went off to the printer yesterday. By the
time you read this you should have already
received a copy. And today I sent the next
PHSS News off to Oakland, where it will
be printed and mailed.
The main thrust of the last issue of
¡Roca! was about “the road ahead.” We
really can’t ponder that road without first
looking at the road behind us—at the past.

I

There are two good reasons to examine the past—to see if the previous progress we’ve traveled down the road of life
contained contradictions that still need to
be resolved, and, secondly, to measure our
individual or collective progress in terms
of resolving those contradictions. I’m told
that once that step achieved the rest is pretty easy.
Excuse me for waxing political, I’ll try to
keep it brief. Mao Tse Tung wrote a book
about contradictions, called, oddly enough,
“On Contradictions.” To put the content of
this book into a sentence or two is to do it a
great injustice, but here’s what I took away
from my last reading of it some 40 years

ago: There are two types of contradictions,
antagonistic and non-antagonistic. Those
among the people are non-antagonistic
and are resolved through processes such
as communication and education. Antagonistic contradictions are those between the
people and the exploitive super rich, and
these contradictions are resolved differently—through the process of class struggle.
Some readers may have this newsletter
in their hands because, to them, what I have
to say is interesting, other readers may be
just be plain bored. Whatever your reason
reading this, feel freee to let me know how
this publication can be improved upon.
Ed Mead

Ed Mead
P.O. Box 47439
Seattle, WA 98146

FIRST CLASS MAIL