Working

W
Working
ki to
t Extend
E t d Democracy
D
to
t All 
Volume
Volume
V
V l
2, N
2
Number
b 2
2

February

F
F b
February
2013
2013

ON THE QUESTION OF INTEGRATED CELLING
[Note: The following article was originally published a few years ago in the Prison
Focus newspaper. Given the current
debate on the subject, however, I thought it
would be a good idea to reprint here.]
By C. Landrum
ntroduction: We’re all aware of the
2005 court decision ordering the
D.C.C. to begin implementing integrated celling of the prison’s multi-ethnic
population. What may not be known to
many is that this policy has already been
initiated.
For the most part the immediate response
has essentially been that of resistance
which has manifested itself in both abstract
(verbal) and practical (concrete) forms.
Despite the multi-faceted origin of this
resistance, it is primarily the manifestation
of subjective influences, that is, a long history of our social conditioning. Furthermore
it should be noted that this resistance is not
exclusively limited to the prison masses but
transcends them to include those correctional officers who work in close proximity
to the prisoners themselves.

I

CONTENTS
On Integrated Celling ...............1
New Corrections Boss .............4
The Final Hour .........................5
Editorial Comments..................6
Lawsuit Forces SHU Moves.....7
Letters ......................................8

It is only through the understanding of
something’s opposite that we can fully
understand that which it is we seek to understand. For us to fully comprehend the
resistance of the correctional officers and
place this resistance into its proper context,
we must not only understand, as most already do, that the C.O.s have no desire to
deal with a prison population at each other’s throats. But we must also understand
the opposite tendency of this equation, i.e.,
that neither do they wish to see prisoners
on exceptionally good terms with each other, for these are the conditions necessary to
redirect our energies to the improvement
of our conditions—thus threatening their
interests.
The first attempts at implementing this
policy was initiated at Mule Creek State
Prison and the Sierra Conservation Center
in Ione. This was met with mixed results.
Prison bureaucrats announced that the
imposition of this policy went smoothly
in Mule Creek. When we place this in its
proper context, this is understandable considering the content of Mule Creek’s population as a “drop out” yard, i.e., defeatist
a passive in both essence and form.
and
In regards to the Sierra Conservation
C
Center,
despite the individualism, and near
total
lack of unity that permeates all lowt
er
e level facilities, there was nevertheless
s
some
degree of collective resistance in an
effort
to prevent the process of integration
e
f
from
proceeding.
There is a valuable lesson to be drawn
f
from
this as well. The many analysis and
t
theories
formulated around the argument
that
unity amongst the prisoners on the
t
l
lower
levels was an impossibility have now
been
b
proven wrong. Although a distinction
m be made. The unity was a progressive
must

development in itself—the motive behind
it was for an essentially counterproductive
purpose and against our objective interests.
The prisoners who participated engaged
in a work stoppage and, although they were
“temporarily” successful in prolonging
this process, the C.D.C. is intent on moving forward with this integration state-wide
within two to three years.
This poses numerous questions, both
theoretical and practical. I would like to
ask you both, S.K and C.L., some questions more pertinent to the issue at hand.
Likewise, I understand that circumstances
necessitate a degree of self censorship.
Nonetheless, whatever thoughts that you
can share will no doubt be greatly appreciated and hopefully foster healthy dialogue
that can result in action.
Question One: Do you believe that the
issue of desegregation can be effectively
addressed without also addressing the context in which this process develops? And
why?
SK: The short answer is “No.” The
prison system is a microcosm of the class
and racial contradictions inherent with the
larger society. The segregation of prisoners was an extension of the class and racial
segregation existing within society at that
time. Over the years we have adopted and
perpetuated these social practices as our
own. This is reflected not only in our division into groups based on race, but also
in the rules and regulations in which the
groups operate. And despite the “official
desegregation” that has formally occurred
within the judicial realm some decades
ago, we as prisoners have condoned and
rigidly perpetuated this segregation and
hostilities which have been reinforced and
encouraged by the prison administration—

covertly as well as overtly. The ethnic, cultural, and geographical divide that we base
our separation upon can be collectively
dissolved through dialogue, although we
must do so on a common ground which we
can rally around, and this common ground
is our prison conditions and the necessity
to preserve and advance our own existence
and development. A common struggle
would function as the vehicle to accomplish this. So, “no”, desegregation and our
prison conditions cannot be divorced, other
than to do so artificially.
CL: This is an extremely relevant question. To expand on S.K.’s response in greater depth, I think it is necessary to understand that nothing exists in total isolation,
separate, and independent of those other
objects and phenomena around it which
it is interconnected with, be it organic, inorganic, social development, the development of human thought and knowledge,
including the developments that are in motion throughout the C.D.C. right now.
Everything without exception is interrelated (connected, interpenetrating, interdependent, etc.), and influences the direction
and development of everything else around
it, as it is in turned influenced by those
forces around it. Keeping in mind, that in
contradiction to the static and motionless
“appearance” of objective reality (matter),
everything, including social phenomenon
is “essentially” in perpetual transformation. J. Stalin captured this well in his penetrating work Dialectical and Historical
Materialism,” when he stated:
“No phenomenon in nature can be
understood if taken by itself, isolated
from surrounding phenomenon….
Any phenomena in any realm in nature
may become meaningless to us if it is
not considered in connection with the
surrounding conditions. Any phenomena can be understood and explained
if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena….”
Our concrete conditions and practical
activities, such as the racial and geographical hostilities that we perpetuate between
us not only gives further shape, thus molding our ideas and ways of thinking, i.e., our
consciousness, that reflects and reinforces
these practices. But reciprocally in turn,
also influences the direction and further
deterioration of our material conditions in
that we give the necessary justification the
C.D.C. relies upon to further strip us of our
remaining “rights” and privileges.
Concrete conditions—the matter around
2

us—and our actions influence the direction
and development of our consciousness, by
way of our five sense organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. In separable interconnection, our consciousness influences the direction and transformation of our
material conditions when we transform our
consciousness back into matter, from ideas
back into existence, and in the process of
literally transform our concrete conditions.
This was also summed up well in Marx’s
statement, “Circumstances create man as
much as man creates his circumstances.”
Unless we change our current practices
and do so soon, we are going to lose everything, including our leverage and our ability to transform our situation. The transformation of our material conditions and the
transformation of our consciousness (ideas,
ways of thinking, concepts, emotions, etc.)
is intrinsically interdependent. One process
cannot occur without the other. To transform our condition is to simultaneously
transform ourselves in the process, and
visa versa, the opposite. Fred Engels said
in explicit terms:
“Man’s ideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the
conditions of his material existence,
in his social relations and in his social
life.”
Historically the C.D.C. has used every major event that has arisen within the
prison system to further its own objectives at our expense—be it financial or in
the erosion of our “rights.” Qualitatively
speaking, there has not been a break in the
continuity of this trajectory of deterioration
over the last two years (longer?). This desegregation is inevitable and the sooner we
grasp this intellectually, the sooner we can
begin “formulate” and effective strategy
that is “essentially” collective in its coordination so as not to allow the state to exploit
and exacerbate the existing contradictions
between us as a means to further infringe
upon our remaining “rights.”
Question Two: Having read your responses, both of you not only draw essentially identical conclusions that this desegregation process in inevitable, but that
some degree of collective cooperation between the prisoners themselves is needed.
Would you please elaborate on this?
CL: It is important to understand that
the state, in all of its forms—the military,
intelligence, police, judicial system, courts,
etc., including the prison system—is not
only a product of class divided society, it is

a tool created and used by the economically
dominating classes to protect and preserve
their financial and material interests, i.e.,
their class interests.
In his theoretical work State and Revolution, Lenin correctly observed:
The state is a product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms…. According to Marx, the
state is an organ of class domination,
and organ of oppression of one class
by another; its aim is the creation of
“order” which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the
collisions between the classes.”
And although it was not the intention
of Frederick Engels, he nonetheless completed Lenin’s statement with this passage
taken from his ground-breaking work, The
Origin of the Family, Private Property, and
the State, in which he says:
“Public force exists in every state; it
consists not merely of armed men, but
of material appendages, prisons (emphasis added), and repressive institutions of all kinds.”
On first appearance the above quote may
seem irrelevant to the question, but it is
actually essential to the question as will
become apparent, as it is to our conditions
and to the formulation of a correct plan
of action. It allows us to place the various aspects of this issue into proper context. Not only is the prison system a tool,
of the wealthy and their upper class supporters, used to perpetuate their ill-gotten
class privileges, the prison administration
and overly paid guards belong to a social
class whose economic interests are irreconcilably opposed to our interests as prisoners. As the comrade S.K. has acknowledged, the prison system is a microcosm of
the class and racial contradictions existing
within society. We must not interpret this
mechanically, i.e., from one side only. The
prison system is not only a reflection of social contradictions and class struggle, but
the prison system in turn, dialectically, reacts back on society, exerting its own degree of influence on the direction of social
development, such as on social policies,
laws, etc.
But more revealing of the comrade’s observation is the fact that the class struggle
is an objective phenomenon that occurs
regardless of our opinions, intentions, feelings, etc., just as the sun arises and sets regardless of our will.
A guard may wish you a “Buenos dias”
as the tray slides through the food port in
Rock

your cell door, but that has no bearing on
the fact that their material conditions as a
social class are sustained on our incarceration, i.e., the incarceration of society’s predominately poorest members. These same
“cool” C.O.s push and vote for the harshest
laws on the ballot that will keep us incarcerated for the minorest infractions, thus
perpetuating their class interests at our expense and the expense of the social class
from which we originate.
It must be understood that all of what
we are currently surrendering without any
form of resistance, spontaneous or organized, was not given to us on a silver platter, but was purchased for in the blood and
sweat of those convicts of previous generations. Nor are these infringements upon our
various “rights” unconnected isolated acts
carried out on the part of the state. They are
a connected part of a larger agenda pursued
by various class forces who share a common interest in not only an incarcerated
population, but in a defeatist and submissive prison population as well.
This allows us to see that any and everything that they do is diametrically opposed
to our concrete interests, and despite the
fact that this particular issue of desegregation was initiated by another prisoner’s law
suit, the state will utilize it to further their
interests—if we let them. The question is,
“Will we break with continuity”? Furthermore, any and all infringements upon our
“rights” affect us as a whole, not just as
individuals. To challenge or resist their encroachments “solely” on an individual level by itself only insures the success of their
“divide and conquer” tactic. Not only must
we challenge them on an individual level
(602s, law suites, citizen complaints, etc.),
we must more importantly cooperate with
one another as objective conditions necessitate and resist them as a united front.
SK: The necessity for change amongst
the prison population and the concrete conditions is most evident by the prisoners’
existing conditions themselves and their
continuous deterioration. Reversing, or at
best, changing, the current direction of this
trend and the corresponding self-destructive practices that reflects this downward
deterioration, requires a protracted process
of mutual cooperation between us, requiring that we set aside whatever difference
we might have in order to achieve our intended and agreed upon goals, whatever
they may be.
Question Three: So far you have given
us a general description of this cooperation,
Volume 2, Number 2

but could you describe to us in more detail how you envision this cooperation and
what objectives do we intend to achieve
from this cooperation?
SK: I would suggest that some form of
strategic alliance be formulated by those
individuals who already occupy positions
of authority/influence.
There have been instances over the
length of several decades of prisoner disunity in which we came together in order to
achieve a common goal that improved the
quality of prisoners’ conditions.
The prison system continues to grow and
expand while the quality of prisoners’ material conditions and social relations continue on a downward spiral. Just under the
previous two decades, prisoners have lost
more than half of the gains it took decades
of struggle to obtain.

By Criss Garcia

The balance of forces has tipped and we
are in the process of transforming into our
opposite. Numerically we are nearly the
minority now, and those in protective custody (SNY) are nearly the majority. Where
we were once free to walk the lines while
those who demanded protective custody
from the state were isolated; today it is us
who are now isolated under the guise of
validation, i.e., indeterminate SHU, etc.,
and those demanding protective custody
are rewarded. These rewards are temporary
and a tactical move on the part of the state,
used as incentive to entice those converts
who have refused to capitulate up to this
point.
We have arguably lost more than we
have left to lose. The balance of forces
have also tipping here and as dialectics and
the struggle of opposites reveal, the C.D.C.
is that much closer to achieving their grand

agenda. The further day has progressed, the
sooner darkness will envelope us.
CL: There are no such thing as “rights”,
there are only power struggles. This captures the essence of all objective reality,
i.e., it captures the transitory nature of reality’s motion, be it organic, inorganic, human thought, social phenomenon, etc. To
comprehend this, is to likewise comprehend that any strategy or tactics that we
formulate (assuming we adhere to a plan)
would be purely abstract and only approximate with reality to a given point.
In other words, we can devise a plan
based upon a thorough analysis of existing conditions, but by the time we begin to
implement this plan, many aspects of the
existing conditions will have already transformed, although the essential trajectory
will have remained the same and this is of
importance to understand.
We can formulate a general plan, i.e., a
“strategy” while the particularities (tactics)
of this plan must be fluid and can only be
realized through concrete actions, not abstract theories and ideas divorced from
practical actions.
Having said that, individualism is a tremendous obstacle. I don’t believe it possible at this stage to convince another prisoner to take up the cause of other prisoners if
it does not impact him or her directly, even
if it does so indirectly. Validation reform is
a prime example.
Due to the low level of prisoners’ political consciousness and for practical purposes, we would have to find an issue, or
a number of issues, that affect all of us in
common which we could unite around.
As for integrated celling, this is an extremely complex issue, an issue that only
the prison masses can decide. Do we accept
it, or not? I correctly recognize that to resist
it in a attempt to perpetuate the old statusquo, no matter what our “initial instincts”
tell us, is in fact “reactionary” and only sets
ourselves up for further infringement of our
rights.
Despite our decision, we need to ask ourselves, “are we going to allow C.D.C. to
manipulate and exploit our reaction” as a
means to advance their agenda and deprive
us further, that is, are we going to continue
assisting them in keeping their boot on our
necks?
No matter what our decision is, assuming
we do organize ourselves, I strongly suggest that we not turn on one another and
provide the C.D.C. with more justification,
but instead unite and struggle to improve
3

our circumstances and preserve all of that
which is positive of ourselves, rather than
dig our holes a little deeper than we already
have.
There’s nothing more that the C.D.C.
fears than to see us on good terms with each
other. If we do not transform our reactionary ways into a pro-active existence, we
will continue losing what remaining “solid” yards we have left, which are already
becoming difficult to distinguish between.
With that said, I’m only one of 170,000
other prisoners in the CA system. I neither
have the authority, nor all of the solutions
to our dilemmas. Like the next man, I can
only suggest and contribute my opinion,
thoughts, knowledge, etc., and hope that
others will be provoked to contribute their
own input with the ultimate goal of reaching a consensus by those in a position to
implement a plan of action.
Dialectics reveals the transitory character of all reality, i.e., the transformation that
results from the struggle of opposite tendencies inherent within all reality. It’s not
a question of whether or not transformation
is going to come. Change—motion—is
perpetual as it is inevitable. The question
is, are we going to sit idly by, or are we
going to harness these contradictions and
influence the direction and development
of these changes to serve our common interests? As Lenin correctly said in On The
Question of Dialectics, “development is the
struggle of opposites.” ●

NEW CHIEF OF
CALIFORNIA’S
PRISONS NAMED

G

ov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday
named a vocal advocate of shorter
sentences and community treatment to run the state’s crowded and troubled prison system.
Brown announced the selection of Jeffrey Beard, 65, the retired former Pennsylvania prisons chief, to succeed Matthew
Cate, who stepped down last month after
four years as secretary of corrections in
California. Cate is now leader of the California State Assn. of Counties.
Beard, whose appointment is subject to
Senate confirmation, spent nearly four decades in corrections in Pennsylvania, starting as a counselor and advancing to prison
warden, eventually spending nine years as
department head. He completed an expan4

sion of that state’s prison system, including
the addition of 32,000 inmate beds.
He left in 2010, advocating for laws that
put more criminals into work-treatment
programs instead of prisons, telling lawmakers that an “over-reliance” on locking
up non-serious offenders did little to improve public safety.
Though an official start date was not announced, Beard joins Brown’s administration at a critical time. The Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation has until
Jan. 7 to produce a plan for reducing prison
crowding or face the renewed threat of federal orders to release inmates early.
In addition, a federal receiver is attempting to negotiate terms for California to resume control over the delivery of
healthcare to inmates. And the parole and
healthcare divisions are laying off staff.

In announcing the appointment, Brown
said Beard “has arrived at the right time to
take the next steps in returning California’s
parole and correctional institutions to their
former luster.”
Beard’s successor in Pennsylvania says
Beard will fit right in.
“I think you guys hit a home run,” said
Pennsylvania Corrections Secretary John
Wetzel.
Wetzel, who was appointed eight months
after Beard retired, said the former director
weighed in frequently with crucial advice
and provided input on new legislation intended to reduce prison crowding in that
state and on expanding community treatment and diversion programs.
In 2008, Beard lent support to a proposal
to ease county jail crowding by sending
felons serving more than two years to state
prison. But it allowed for medical release
and early release of nonviolent offenders
who completed treatment and education
programs.
Andy Hoover, legislative director for the

Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil
Liberties Union, said Beard played an active role in developing corrections policies
and promoting them before the Legislature.
But Beard has critics as well, some of
whom hold him responsible for expanding
the use of solitary confinement in Pennsylvania and for a two-month moratorium
on parole releases after the murders of two
Philadelphia police officers. The moratorium caused such overcrowding that Pennsylvania began sending inmates to serve
time in other states.
Hoover said Beard was caught in a political bind, carrying out policies he had not
set. “He was in an unfortunate position,”
Hoover said. “It was very much out of his
hands.”
Corrections historian Dan Berger, who
was working on his doctoral degree at the
University of Pennsylvania at the time, disagrees.
“Beard does not have a good reputation
on health and human rights in prison,”
Berger said. “He gives more rhetoric to
sentencing reform than believes it.”
After retiring in 2010, Beard joined
Pennsylvania State University’s Justice
Center for Research, and he has worked as
a private consultant to a number of states,
including California. He advised Sacramento on litigation over the care and housing of mentally ill offenders and has toured
California prisons.
Beard is not shy about voicing opinions
on where the criminal justice system fails.
In 2010, he told Pennsylvania lawmakers
that heavy reliance on incarceration of lowlevel offenders “has proven to have limited
value in maintaining public safety.”
“We must stop treating all offenders the
same and move away from the ‘get tough
on crime’ philosophy of locking up less serious offenders for longer periods of time,”
he told them.
In a 2005 commentary in an industry
publication, Beard called for a rethinking
of “who really belongs in prison” and an
end to the then-popular “scared straight”
programs he felt increased the likelihood
that freed inmates would commit future
crimes. “We must have the will to put an
end to feel-good and/or publicly popular
programs that simply do not work,” Beard
wrote.
Corrections officials said Beard was unavailable but released a single statement
quoting the incoming secretary as saying
he was “honored” to be appointed “for this
important public safety position.” ●
Rock

THE FINAL HOUR
By C. Landrum
[Ed’s Note: The footnotes in this article
were inserted by me, and not the author, in
an effort to clarify issues or to provide additional information.]
PBSP-generated memo dated December 10, 2012, was circulated
throughout the pods addressing
both current and additional demands. How
much more obvious can it be?! The state
has essentially been stringing us along like
a puppy on a chain, conceding and occasional crumb along the way in an effort to
pacify and distract us, and ultimately dividing us into opposing camps. As convenient
as it may be, let’s not allow ourselves to
be further deceived with self-delusions of
grandeur. These concessions are not victories to be celebrated without constraint,
except within the most extreme limitation.
They are in fact just merely some of the
‘rights’ that we have long been entitled to.
The overwhelming majority of those of
us subjected to a life sentence of indeterminate sensory deprivation are for nonpunitive administrative purposes, and are
therefore entitled to the same ‘rights and
privileges’ as those in general population, so long as they do not pose a threat
to the safety or security of the institution.
Although this ‘right’ exists only in the abstract.
Our efforts to seek relief and improve
the quality of our conditions by utilizing the administrative (602) and judicial
(lawsuits) avenues available to us, time
and time again both prisoncrats and judges
alike have worked hand-in-glove using this
excuse of safety and security concerns to
perpetuate our oppression.
And now we are demanding more concessions in addition to those already insisted upon—none of which have anything to
do with our most essential issues of eliminating our endless isolation. And prisoncrats respond to our growing demands not
in their usual way with the expected “no”,
but instead they are quick to string us further along on artificial hope cultivated with
empty statements such as, “We’ll look into
it”, “When the budget passes”, “At our next
meeting”, etc., etc. And rather than adjust
our course to meet the needs of our struggle, we mechanically apply the same rigid
tactic, like a stencil superimposed upon
the changing conditions of our needs, and
make more irrelevant demands.
The state is all too willing to haggle over

A

Volume 2, Number 2

secondary issues with us, issues that will
have no fundamental effect on our long
term isolation. The more we preoccupy
ourselves with these non-essential issues,
the further we stray from the decisive issues of social-extermination. But of greater
significance, our success or failure, hinges
upon our ability to distinguish the difference between a strategy and a tactic that
supplements it, something we have failed
abysmally to do. This is a necessity in order to formulate a correct strategy capable
of meeting the needs that will bring us one
step closer to eliminating social-extermination. So allow me to reiterate once again as
we have done many times over.

The state’s capacity to isolate us indefinitely stems
not from any one specific
policy, ... but from the fact
that sensory deprivation facilities exist.
A strategy seeks to abolish the source
of a given phenomenon “internal cause”,
whereas a tactic addresses the “external
side effects” that manifest from an internal
source.
How many times will it take before we
come to our senses and internalize this
simple, yet decisively fundamental lesson?
How many more convicts must die unnecessarily in a pointless effort to alleviate a
symptom while ignoring its source? Or
will we continue chasing our tails until the
prison masses become so psychologically
exhausted and defeated that all confidence
in the collective struggle is depleted? Elevating the political consciousness of the
convict masses is a safeguard that inoculates us against defeatism and the concerns
currently raised, many of which are now
raising their head as a result of initiating
our struggle prematurely.
Although it may appear to be in good
condition externally, a blown motor is incapable of being repaired with a new paint
job. Our efforts to eliminate the validation policy as a vehicle to abolish socialextermination, is in fact a tactical issue that
we have incorrectly pursued as a strategic
solution. Eliminating the validation process—or program failure, the step down
S.T.G. for that matter—only creates a new
necessity for the state to simply manufacture a new pseudo-justification for keeping
us isolated and locked quietly away down a
long, dimly lit corridor.
We failed to draw this lesson from the

Castillo case, but we immediately identified our primary mistake and addressed it
in depth in our analytical and preparatory
outline, the “Road Ahead and the Dialectics of Change”1 But for reasons potentially
self-defeating—inflated egos, self-interest,
feigned indifference, etc., this essentially
decisive issue, and other pertinent ones,
were consciously side-lined and ignored
despite the pamphlet’s wide distribution2,
and personal discussion with some of the
current leadership. To consciously neglect
the obvious, has and continues to cost us
dearly, both in the lives of our fellow convicts, and in unnecessary and avoidable
mistakes.
The state’s capacity to isolate us indefinitely stems not from any one specific
policy, be it program failure, the validation
process, or the S.T.G step down program,
etc., but from the fact that sensory deprivation facilities exist. So long as the SHU,
Ad-Seg, Stand-Alone, ASU, Z-Unit, etc.,
remain intact as they currently do, one excuse only needs to be replaced by another
in order for the state to perpetuate the continuity of its subtle practice of social-extermination.
As litigation neared the judicial conclusion of the Castillo case, the CDC feared a
potential defeat, and so like candy, began to
hand out indeterminate SHU terms for having served prior SHU terms and failure of
program, i.e., “program failure.” Although,
when we ultimately failed to secure a fundamental victory and overturn the validation process, program failure demonstrated
to be an unnecessary alternative to substitute the validation process and perpetuate
indefinite isolation. And it was at this particular point of development that the state
immediately refrained from its substitution
practice. The lesson we failed to draw from
all of this was likely the most obvious as
well! The CDC never entertained the notion of reducing the SHU population. They
would simply manufacture a new excuse,
should circumstances necessitate. But as
we addressed, this proved unnecessary as
a result of their victory and the validation
process was sufficient to continue the slow
and subtle practice of state-sanctioned so1. “The Road Ahead” was published in
volume 1, issue 1, of this newsleƩer. For
those who missed it, you can get the arƟcle in pamphlet form by sending a request
to Rock along with five postage stamps to
cover prinƟng and mailing.
2. This pamphlet was also printed in a
past issue of Prison Focus.
5

cial extermination.
We initiated our current struggle with a
repeat of the same mistake for the second
time. And now, remaining fatefully loyal to
the continuity of our practice, we secured
both a victory, and a defeat simultaneous,
as a result of pursuing our fallacious tactic
for a third time! We eliminated the validation process, although failing to eliminate
social-extermination, we instead inherited
the CDC’s latest excuse used to isolate us
indefinitely—the STG step down program.
Forget the pseudo-justifications used, be
it program failure, validation, the STG step
down program, or any potential excuse,
eliminating one label will only insure its
replacement by another label. These excuses and justifications that are manufactured
by the prisoncrats and the labels they use,
are side-effects that manifest from an internal source, that being the isolation units.
We must transform the isolation units from
within and eliminate their capacity of sensory deprivation, and in doing so, we would
render all of their excuses—old and new—
both obsolete and impractical. We must appeal to the international community of the
U.N., and the domestic community, and in
a political context challenge our legal and
human rights, according to those established by the General Assembly of the U.N.
Social intercourse with others is a necessity to feed, clothe, shelter, and procreate,
in order to perpetuate our species. Seeking out the company of others is a genetic
drive programmed within our DNA, and in
the process of social intercourse, our personalities as distinct individuals is shaped
and molded, giving us our identities. To socially isolate and deprive us of social contact is to dehumanize us and destroy our
identity as distinct personalities. A life of
both social isolation and sensory deprivation is an unnatural state of existence artificially imposed upon a essentially social
animal. Such conditions of social isolation
amounts to nothing less that “social-extermination”—keeping us alive biologically
as living, breathing, empty vessels, devoid
of all social content—a socially engineered
lobotomy.
This is as much of our human right as
it is a phenomena of political economy,
and only in the political theater can this
be fought effectively. Only in this political context is there potential to resuscitate
and cultivate our identity, and politically
collective identity. We must establish our
‘right’ to social intercourse, which would
serve as the vehicle to install tables (two),
6

phones, exercise bars (designed and fabricated by convicts), cellies, etc., day-room
(8 man minimum) to facilitate social-intercourse. “Limited association” must be our
primary demand!
So much has been left unaddressed. It
would require another pamphlet to address
all of the relevant issues, ideological, economic, a philosophic guide forming strategic and tactical matters, participation of
general population and its interests, the
role of S.N.Y. and solid yards, weights,
family visits, minimum wage, and other
possibilities. But what’s absolutely necessary is an adjustment in our current in our
current course. And if necessary, we should
consider pursuing the demand for “limited
association” with a small, politically conscious, and dedicated, group of volunteer
H. strikers (ten, fifteen, maybe 20?) to proceed in pairs until expiration if necessary
with a replacement pair on standby. Media
outlets, public, etc. could be provided with
pre-written statements, interviews, photos,
etc. with the initiation of each pair. This
tactic would not only allow us to present
to the public a human face on our struggle
and develop support, it would prevent the
media from diluting itself between several
thousand others who at this stage participate more from a sense of obligation than
political conviction—a trend that we must
also struggle to reverse. ●

EDITORIAL 2-2

W

ell boys and girls, it’s time for
another exciting episode of
“Bring In The Liberals.” Yep,
Governor Brown has appointed/nominated what some will call a liberal to head
CDCR.
I’ve had the pleasure of playing this
game before, back the mid-1970s in the
Washington State prison system. When
prisoners struggling for democracy made
the Penitentiary ungovernable, the state
fired the head of DOC, transferred the warden, and brought in liberal correctional
bureaucrats from another state. We had a
liberal head of DOC and a new liberal warden. They gave and gave to us prisoners.
For example, I was able to create the first
sanctioned openly gay prisoners’ organization in history—Men Against Sexism.
Gay prisoners could wear dresses and full
makeup on the inside! The new administration even gave us faggots a roomy, air
conditioned office to meet and hang out in.
Of course this sudden air of permissiveness caused a rift between the old line
guards and the new administration. Had
my comrades and I been more politically
sophisticated we would have exploited that
contradiction, but back then all we had in
mind was backing the liberals up against
the wall (which of course we did, finally
ushering in their replacement with hardline representatives of the guards union
as the new warden and the new head of
DOC). But that’s another story.
Today you in California may be about
to experience something similar, a least in
terms of a slightly more liberal CDCR. The
new boss is here to toss you some scrumptious crumbs. Many will find them quite
delicious, so good in fact that they will toss
aside things like limited association, the
right to vote, and abolition of the pro-slavery provision of the thirteenth amendment.
Those who lose sight of the larger picture
will say, “Oh, we are being released from
the SHU so we can get back to (fill in the
blank). The struggle for justice is over, and
nobody better disagree.” I’ve seen it more
times than I can count; these elements
become the administration’s first line of
defense, bought and paid for with perks
tossed to them by their captors.
I’ve never done time in California. I’m
not a prisoner. I call no shots. Yet I nonetheless have opinions. One such opinion
that we need a progressive national prisoners’ movement that demands full enfranRock

chisement and modification of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery once
and for all. I believe that stopping short of
these modest changes will seriously damage the cause of justice for prisoners. Note
that while I am a communist and a revolutionary, I am not asking for a communist
organization or for revolution. I am only
calling for two simple and long overdue
reforms. With the right to vote politicians
will pay more attention to prisoner issues.
With the elimination of the slavery provision the justification for treating convicts as
animals will be gone—we’ll have the same
rights as every other citizen.
Because of the huge controversy surrounding my comments on the issue of
mixed racial celling, I have reprinted the
article by C. Landrum (On The Question of
Integrated Celling) that I published some
time ago in Prison Focus. This will enable
us to discuss more about the politics of the
question, and less talk about the gut reactions of those opposed to such a change.
Lastly, it should again be noted that the
change we are talking about is not mandatory interracial celling, but rather the freedom to choose that option without fear of
violence from one’s peers. We are talking
about freedom of choice. And isn’t freedom what we are struggling for?
Now a couple of quick house cleaning
items: First of all, if you write and expect a
response to your letter you should enclose
a SASE. Doing so will save me time and
money. More to the point, it substantially
increases the likelihood of your getting an
answer. Secondly, please do not write and
ask me to get you a lawyer. I’m way up
here in Washington, and don’t know of any
attorneys willing to take on cases in California. I’m fixing to sue CDCR over the rejection of the November issue of Rock and
will be doing the litigation myself, along
with some prisoners, because I don’t yet
have a lawyer willing to help. If I can’t get
one for myself, trust me, I can’t get one for
you. The same goes for other demands on
my time; will you phone here, look up this,
fetch that, etc. At my age (71) I just don’t
have the energy to be your gofer.
As of this issue, Rock has been published
for one year and two months. It has 250
subscribers. Of that number 97 have never
contributed a single stamp. It is the generosity of those who are contributing more
than their share that carries the weight of
those who cannot or will not materially
support this publication. You all pay for—I
just do the work (and run my mouth).
Volume 2, Number 2

A couple of days ago I bought three cases of paper for my printer (ten reams each
case for 30 reams, or 15,000 sheets). With
five sheets of paper for each newsletter and
a mailing list of 250, that’s enough paper
for an entire year of newsletters (of course
the mailing list will grow). I also bought
several cartridges of laser printer toner,
enough for several more issues of Rock.
The bad news is that I’ve used up all the
money you’ve contributed. I won’t need
any money real soon, but within two or
three months I’ll be asking for more financial contributions—especially if there is a
need to put out two issues a month as we
get nearer to July 8th. ●

LAWSUIT FORCES
STATE TO MOVE
PRISONERS FROM
ISOLATION UNITS
Michael Montgomery, KQED
acing a federal lawsuit, state corrections officials are moving forward
with a plan to transfer hundreds of
alleged prison gang members from controversial isolation units to regular lockups
around the state.
The first group of 45 inmates will be
removed from the state’s Security Housing Units in the coming weeks, said Kelly
Harrington, associate director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He said some of the inmates
have spent more than 20 years locked in the
special units.
“The priority has been to look at individuals who have been in the Security Housing Units the longest,” he said. “The goal is
to reduce the number of inmates in the security housing units as safely as possible.”
As part of a new policy announced earlier this year, the inmates are not being required to renounce the gangs or snitch on
other members, a practice known as “debriefing.” Instead, the prisoners must show
they are no longer involved in gang-related
activity as defined by new departmental
guidelines.
Another 21 inmates will be placed in a
“step-down” program that focuses on improving behavior and reintegrating inmates
into the general prison population. Harrington said inmates could pass through the
program within four years.
Since October, corrections officials have

F

reviewed the files of 77 inmates currently
housed in five security housing units, including 16 prisoners being held at Pelican
Bay State Prison, the focus of a class-action
lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and several other legal organizations on behalf of 10 inmates.
The suit claims that prolonged solitary
confinement violates Eighth Amendment
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the absence of meaningful review for placement in the Security
Housing Units violates the prisoners’ right
to due process.
The lawsuit alleges that...
“California’s uniquely harsh regime
of prolonged solitary confinement at
Pelican Bay is inhumane and debilitating. Plaintiffs and class members languish, typically alone, in a cramped,
concrete, windowless cell, for 22 and
one-half to 24 hours a day. They are
denied telephone calls, contact visits,
and vocational, recreational or educational programming. Defendants persistently deny these men the normal
human contact necessary for a person’s mental and physical well-being.
These tormenting and prolonged conditions of confinement have produced
harmful and predictable psychological deterioration among Plaintiffs and
class members.”
Corrections officials insist conditions at
Pelican Bay are humane and have withstood legal challenges. Now, they are trying to show that no inmate will spend more
than four years in the special unit unless
he is actively involved in gangs. Officials
hope to complete the review of nearly a
thousand cases within the next six months.
In February, a federal judge is expected
to rule on a motion to dismiss the suit. ●
Source:http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix
2012/12/28/

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
brochure.
hibited by 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
Seattle, WA 98146
www.prisonart.org
sales@prisonart.org
206-271-5003

7

[Note: Names of letter writers will be
withheld unless the author of the letter explicitly approves printing of their name.]
Words From Calipatria
Speaking as an average, non-influential,
run-of-the-mill mainline prisoner, in my
humble opinion, I believe that the call to
end racial group hostilities should’ve immediately been followed by a call for some
sort of collective action involving all racial
groups in order to begin cementing this
agreement among the GP prisoners. I think
that is essential to moving the struggle forward instead of backwards as this latest incident [the race riot] threatens to do. Also,
the message (about the Agreement to End
Hostilities) as it’s being understood by the
average mainline prisoner is sorely lacking
in content. The great majority of prisoners
I’ve spoken to don’t understand why it’s
necessary to put an end to hostilities between racial groups, or why we must put
the interests of all prisoners ahead of our
own personal ego issues, and why we must
all become more active in the struggle for
causes that benefit us all. In short, it seems
like it’s not being taken too seriously and
treated as if nothing has changed.
Mao began his Analysis of the Classes
in Chinese Society by asking “Who are our
enemies? Who are our friends? This is a
question of first importance for the revolution.” In prison it is not difficult to see
who your friends should be. Look around,
it’s all those living in the same exact conditions as you do. They’re caged up in the
cell right next to yours. Nothing is different
between your situation and his. You eat the
same-sized portions of crap that these pigs
feel you got coming. They’ll shot you with
that mini-14 rifle just like they’ll shoot him
when you’re stabbing each other on the
yard. There is absolutely no substantive
difference between the way you’re forced
to live your life and the way he’s forced to
live his.
Who decides when you get toilet paper
and how much of it you get? Who decides
when and how much you eat? Who enforces the sentence the judge gave you? Who
enforces the warden’s call to cancel all visits, all phone calls, and the amount of time
spent in your tiny cell every time there’s a
lockdown? The human being living in the
cell right next to yours might have a dif8

Words of Wisdom?
A friend of mine wrote and told me that
in order to eliminate criminality at all its
levels, we must eliminate all the aspects of
society that make people suffer. This includes the prisons and imprisonment, the
police forces and the pretended necessity
for their militarization, and all other institutions of contempt for the people. Though
these institutions pretend to provide security, it is a security that victimizes the people, while primarily providing security for
those institutions themselves, in the name
of the people.
What they are essentially defending with
that security are the institutions of economic exploitation, impoverishment, racialization, and the commodification of people.
Please consider—in order for there to be
justice, we have to get rid of the government’s criminal role models.
The judicial machine’s role models are
the engine by which social criminality and
its injustices endlessly increase. Under the
guise of protecting society from crime, an
social situation is created in which people
find themselves without protection from
the judicial machine, instrumental in producing injury, suffering, and a social atmosphere of contempt. The judicial machine
leads only to the formation of a police state.
The judicial role model is no longer acceptable?
[Name Withheld]
More on Interracial Celling
I am just one of the sixteen SHU reps
here at PBSP. I write in response to part
of your editorial comments in Rock Vol. 1
#12, Dec. 2012. I won’t bother to waste my
time with the rest.
You stated that those up here “put out
the dictate that nobody should take an interracial cellie…..” This is the first I hear
of it! That has to be false, especially when
wardens across the state, right now, won’t
cell-up any individuals from other races in
SHU. Hell, here at PBSP-SHU, we Mexicans, Whites, and most Blacks can’t even
cell-up with our own race unless they’re
relatives, let alone with someone from an-

other race. That’s a fact!
That said, the only thing I’ve
heard and maybe expressed to
outside supporters that could
have been twisted up in the rumor mill and then spat out by
you is that SHU prisoners should
consider to not to cell up with
anyone and remain single-celled.
This was being said in order to
deprive CDCR of those empty
SHU cells, where CDCR cannot fill them with more general population
(GP) prisoners—but we’re not against any
in SHU celling up.
I’ll further add that the reality in California prisoners, CDCr has always integrated
the GP bathrooms, mess halls, tiers, work
places and yards. And prior to the ruling in
Johnson v. California (2005) 543 U.S. 499,
CDCR had an unwritten policy on GP that
they still have in all SHUs, as I already stated, of not celling up prisoners from different races together (even if they are homies
from the same group). Which I believe is
how that Johnson case came about, where
two friends from different races who were
“compatible” wanted to “voluntarily” cell
up, but CDCR refused their request and
Johnson filed suit. And, after CDCR lost
that case—and we all know how CDCR
loves to retaliate by twisting and manipulating court rulings to their advantage
whenever they lose (the Castillo settlement case is just one example), they turned
around and tried to “force” GP prisoners at
all security levels (1 through 4) to cell up
with other races. And this was during the
hostilities. Behind that CDCR action alone,
a lot of violence erupted on the GPs. Under the information I received, CDCR now
only “forces” level 1 and 2 prisoners to integrate in dorms (i.e., 3 man bunk beds).
Then, in 2007, in order to further clean
up their won created violence, and under
the guise of a security threat, that they
themselves created; CDCR got around
the court’s ruling by creating Cal Code of
Regulations, Section 3269.1 “Integrated
Housing.” If you read that, you’ll se that
no one remotely involved in the so-called
racial-hostilities for the past 30 years will
be allowed to cell up with individuals from
other races. That rule alone probably excludes everyone in SHU, as well as all prisoners CDCR is now cataloging under the
new Security Threat Group (STG), which
ninety-nine percent of GPO and new prisoners will fall under. Thus, further discred-

LETTERS

LETTERS

ferent skin color than yours, and he might
listen to different music, but he’s dealing
with the same shit as you, day in and day
out. Once you realize who you should be
uniting with you’ll realize who you should
be fighting against.
Cacalotl Cordova, Calipatria

Rock

iting the rumor you started.
However, if you want to know my personal opinion on this issue, I feel that as
long as two individuals are “compatible”
and “mutually” agree to “voluntarily” cell
up with each other, they should be allowed
to cell up, no matter the race. But no one
should ever be forced to cell up, even those
from the same race and group. This is especially so in the SHU, where you have to
spend 22 ½ hours together in a confined
space, sometimes for years. In that situation, the last thing one wants is to be in as
cell for that amount of time with someone
you are not compatible with. That would
only be a recipe for disaster in that cell. Let
me include a parallel that would be like if
the U.S. Supreme Court during the civil
rights rulings also ordered the military to
“force” all races and people across the U.S.
to also be integrate their won households
with neighbors and strangers. That may
have worked in a perfect world. But, if the
court had even tried that, even today, the
people of all races and groups would have
risen up united to overthrow the government. That’s a fact that nobody can honestly
deny. That’s the same in California prisons,
where the prison cells are the households.
Therefore, no one should agree with CDCR
or any court to “force” anyone to cell up together unless they both “mutually” agree to
“voluntarily” cell up with even those from
the same group or race. Of course this is
only my opinion, but I’m sure all or most
of your readers will agree with this because
we are all trying to avoid hostilities, not
create new ones or restart old ones.
Finally, not that I have everyone’s attention, I would like to add some short info
of importance. On the HS, no one with a
serious or chronic illness should participate
(i.e., diabetes, heart problems, etc.). Also,
because CDCR is complicating things for
us, our demands will probably no come out
until sometime in January. Here at PBSP,
the disciplinary free period starts from the
day you receive a RVR. If that happens,
file a 602 appeal because that’s a due process violation. The year should start from a
finding (guilty) of a serious RVR. And, per
CDCR DOM, article 43, sec. 54030.10.2
“legal materials” are not to be counted towards the personal book limits. Instead,
they are to be counted towards the six cubic foot property limits. So do not allow the
IGI, property, or staff to try and count legal
books, etc., as your personal book limits.
File a 602 if they do. In solidarity,
Arturo Castellanos #C-17275, D1-121
Volume 2, Number 2

Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Greetings from the Tehachapi SHU.
Hopefully folks have already been compiling a list of issues specific to your institutions. My guess is that many of the issues
are the same. My suggestion is that you
start exhausting the 602 process (group
appeal) on many of the items that are correctable within your facilities. Namely, the
ones your individual institutions have power over. Even the more broad issues that
must be addressed by Sacramento are good
(e.g. limit on soap, weekly phone calls,
longer visitation, contact visits, Article 43
issues, etc.). That way we are also adding our collective voices to those already
speaking in PBSP. But because group 602s
are still subject to a 14 day waiting period
you’ll want to strategize to strike a balance
on things that you feel can be fixed easily
with rep negotiation as we draw closer to
struggle, and those issues that you want to
give voice to. Over here we are also spreading out group appeals by having one section or block appeal one issue and another
section/block another issue, and so on. This
is so that as a whole we are pushing all of
our issues at once. Basically gearing up and
preparing to have all 3rd level response in
hand come July 8th. By then we’ll have the
documentation showing that we have put
fourth effort to address these issues through
the grievance process one last time.
Sacramento should hear tens of thousands of voices on the issues that affect us
all, and locally your captains and wardens
will have both notice and know what they
can do to fix institutional problems as well.
That said. We out!
Marco Perez
To Participte in Setp Down?
I am writing these lines in regards to the
pilot program being implemented statewide, the so called step down program. In
my opinion this program is a tiny step in
the right direction. But I do agree with Mr.
Castellanos and the Short Corridor Collective in that this STG 1 and STG 2 categories CDCR wants to put into Title 15 widens the scope of what will now fall under
gang activity. As their blueprint now reads,
anything one does can be construed as
gang activity, and anyone who doesn’t toe
the CDCR line can arbitrarily be labeled
a member of a security threat group and
locked down indefinitely. And let’s be real
here, some individuals can and do become
informants just by being told they will be
validated, not trying to belittle anyone, just

speaking the truth.
I think what you are doing by publicizing the struggle being waged in these security housing units is great. Keep up the
good work and fight. But, and here’s my
but, there are people around here who read
your newsletter and misinterpret what they
read within said pages. This only causes
confusion and misdirection which benefits
CDCR only. Everyone agrees that the 5.5
and 7.0 proposals of the STG program are
laughable as they are written, but right now
they are the only game in town. Now allow me to play devil’s advocate and say we
will not participate in the farce called the
step down program. In that case the only
ones benefitting from this stand is the department (CDCR) who will say “Look we
offered a way out of the SHU and they refuse to participate, we did our part in good
faith, etc., etc.” And they would love this
because we would be in the unenviable position of cutting off our noses to spite our
face. I have read and understand the core
demands that the Short Corridor Collective have made to the CDCR secretary and
governor Jerry Brown, and they are and
should stay non-negotiable until CDCR
comes to the bargaining table in good faith
and grants core demands one through three.
Until then it’s all smoke and mirrors in the
hopes that they can get away with only a
cosmetic touch up with no substance.
[A paragraph is omitted that deals with
failure of the DRB to properly or timely release validated prisoners.]
I have said my piece and hope that the
opinions I expressed within do no offend
anyone. I await, as everyone around me,
you next issue of Rock newsletter. Thank
you for your time and if you can would you
please print this letter in an upcoming issue.
Carlos Sainz, Tehachapi SHU
[Ed’s Response: As I’ve said elsewhere
in this issue, I’ve never done time in California, I’m not a prisoner, and I call no
shots. That said, however, I do have a lot
of prison organizing experience, and one
thing I’ve learned over the years is this:
You can settle for a small crumb from the
crust of the pie, or you can settle for a slice
of the pie, you can even dig in your heels
and shoot for the whole damn pie. It seems
to me like you are ready to settle for a mere
crumb. Once folks have a thick and healthy
slice of pie in their belly, I seriously doubt
anyone will really care what CDCR says
about any lack of prisoner participation in
their step down scheme.] ●
9

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is converting Valley State Prison for Women
(VSPW) into a men’s prison in response
to a U.S. Supreme Court order to reduce
overcrowding. Instead of releasing people
and closing VSPW, they are squeezing over
1,000 women and transgender people into
the two remaining women’s prisons. The
population of the other women’s prison in
Chowchilla, Central California Women’s
Facility (CCWF) is dangerously close to
4,000 even though its maximum capacity
is 2,000. The conversion has aggravated
overcrowding, created dangerous conditions, and health care is already getting
much worse. What’s more, they have added
yet another men’s prison to their inhumane
system. We’ve had enough! Come show

support for all people locked up in Chowchilla’s prisons and tell the Federal Judges
that overcrowding must stop now!
CHOWCHILLA FREEDOM RALLY
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Rides available by bus and carpool. Contact chowchilla.rally@gmail.com or 415255-7036 x 314
Caravans leaving from MacArthur BART
in Oakland at 10:30AM and Chuco’s Justice Center in Inglewood at 8:30AM. We
will gather at 2PM at SE corner of Ave.
24 and Fairmead Blvd off Highway 99 in
Chowchilla.
Rally begins at 3PM at VSPW.
OVERCROWDING = DEATH
BRING OUR LOVED ONES HOME!
COMMUNITY RELEASE PROGRAMS
* PAROLE FOR ELDERS * RELEASE

FOR MEDICAL REASONS * END LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE (LWOP)
Solidarity actions encouraged! If you
cannot make the rally or do not live in
California, we encourage you to organize
a solidarity action on the same day in your
community. Hold a demonstration in front
of the DOC offices or the county jail, organize a speak-out against prisons in a public
space, stand in solidarity the Chowchilla
Freedom Rally! Please let us know how we
can support you! Contact info@womenprisoners.org.
Interested in helping organize this event?
Join our coalition! Our next meeting is
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 from 6 - 8PM
at the CCWP offices. 1540 Market Street,
Suite 490, San Francisco. Or contact adrienne@womenpriosoners.org. ●

Ed Mead, Publisher
Rock Newsletter
P.O. Box 47439
Seattle, WA 98146

FIRST CLASS MAIL