[Ppnews] Pelican Bay SHU Reps: Continued ignoring of 5 Core Demands could prompt peaceful protest

Political Prisoner News ppnews at freedomarchives.org
Fri Dec 28 19:16:12 EST 2012


    Report from the Pelican Bay SHU Short Corridor Representatives:
    Continued ignoring of Five Core Demands could prompt resumption of
    peaceful protest
    <http://sfbayview.com/2012/report-from-the-pelican-bay-shu-short-corridor-representatives-continued-ignoring-of-five-core-demands-could-prompt-resumption-of-peaceful-protest/>

December 28, 2012
http://sfbayview.com/2012/report-from-the-pelican-bay-shu-short-corridor-representatives-continued-ignoring-of-five-core-demands-could-prompt-resumption-of-peaceful-protest/

Part 1: Open letter to CDCR and PBSP officials

To: CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 
Undersecretary of Operations Terri McDonald, PBSP (Pelican Bay State 
Prison) Warden Greg Lewis, PBSP Associate Warden P.T. Lewis

From: Todd Ashker, Arturo Castellaños, Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa/Dewberry, 
Antonio Guillen

Subject: PBSP SHU Prisoners' 2011 Five Core Demands

On behalf of myself and those similarly situated, I request your 
attention and responsive action with respect to the issues stated below 
relevant to our 2011 Five Core Demands.

Briefly summarized, it's been nearly 14 months now since we suspended 
our non-violent, peaceful protest hunger strike actions of July and 
September-October 2011, wherein we presented CDCR with our Five Core 
Demands for reforms to be made regarding SHU and Ad Seg policies and 
practices -- all of which your predecessor, Scott Kernan, admitted were 
reasonable. He made this admission during our negotiations as well as 
when he met with our Mediation Team and the public. Mr. Kernan promised 
that our demands would be meaningfully addressed, in substantive ways, 
in a timely fashion.

To date, the bulk of our Five Core Demands have not been met in 
meaningful, substantive ways, as per our understandings and agreements 
during July, August and October 2011 negotiations, some of which you 
were personally present at via phone conference.

This lack of good faith effort to meet our 2011 demands is a big problem 
and needs to be rectified in the not so distant future. In a nutshell, 
our first three core demands -- No. 1: individual accountability; No. 2: 
policies on debriefing and denial of inactive status and related denial 
of release from SHU based on innocuous association and alleged 
intelligence without formal charges; No. 3: an end to long term 
indefinite SHU and Ad Seg and related reforms recommended in 2006 by the 
Commission on Safety and Abuse In America's Prisons 
<http://www.vera.org/content/confronting-confinement> -- have not been met.

The CDCR's Oct. 11, 2012, STG Pilot Program Instructional Memo fails to 
meet our first three core demands for reasons best exemplified in the 
included document titled, "Responsive Opposition to CDCR's Oct. 11, 
2012, STG Pilot Program."

With respect to our core demands No. 4, Food and Nutrition, and No. 5, 
Programming Privileges, the following are examples of problems that 
continue to be unresolved. It's important to remember one of the main 
principles relevant to these demands is that many of us have been in SHU 
for administrative reasons for 10 to 40 years. All parties acknowledged 
during our negotiation process that many of the restrictions were 
redundant and unnecessary in the content of the promised change in 
policy and practice to a system of individual accountability and focus 
on humane treatment and conditions in SHU and Ad Seg units.


      To date, the bulk of our Five Core Demands have not been met in
      meaningful, substantive ways, as per our understandings and
      agreements during July, August and October 2011 negotiations.

We would like to point out that although PBSP SHU Associate Warden P.T. 
Smith has attempted to work together with us in keeping with the above 
principles, based on his nearly 30 years of experience in CDCR and with 
SHU prisoners, his efforts are largely futile based on CDCR headquarters 
and/or SHU warden's non-recognition of the above referenced principles 
and continual focus on maintaining SHU and Ad Seg policies and practices 
that are redundant in a system based on individual accountability.

Below are examples, and in the future we will provide a more detailed list:

Re Core Demand No. 4: Food and Nutrition Issues. This issue remains a 
major problem at Pelican Bay State Prison, with small portions of either 
poorly prepared and/or inedible, rotten food items.

Re Core Demand No. 5: Programming and Privilege Issues. We presented 
CDCR with a list of EXAMPLES of reform measures regarding SHU and Ad Seg 
program and privilege issues, as follows, with notations about continued 
lack of meaningful progress:

A) Expand visiting, regarding amount of time and adding one day per 
week. This hasn't happened yet, in spite of Scott Kernan's July-August 
presentation that extra time would be permitted when visiting slots were 
open. PBSP IGI (Institutional Gang Investigations) insists on having 
three separate visit slots for SHU in order to keep Short Corridor 
prisoners separated from Long Corridor and C Facility prisoners. This 
makes extra time impossible here.

There's no need for three visit slots when visiting is closely monitored 
by ICI, and a system of individual accountability means prisoners 
involved in prohibited actions at visiting can be sanctioned individually.

Between 1989 and 2006, PBSP SHU had two visit slots and often allowed 
extra time when slots were open, especially for visitors coming a long 
distance.

You can direct PBSP to go back to the two slots and permit extra time 
when slots are open, or direct the D Facility visiting room to be 
re-activated and used on weekends and holidays.

B) Allow a weekly phone call -- hasn't happened yet!

C) Allow two annual packages a year -- hasn't happened! We had asked in 
the Five Core Demands for allowance for one 30-pound package of food and 
beverage items and one package of non-food items, such as sweats, 
thermals, cosmetics, earbuds etc. For those held in SHU and Ad Seg for 
more than one year, who are free of any serious disciplinary notices for 
12 months, these prisoners should be allowed TWO 30-pound packages of 
food and beverage items and one package of non-food items per year.

D) Expand canteen and package items allowed. Some new items have been 
allowed; however, there are more that can be added.

One of the items that we need as soon as possible, that CDCR has not 
given the OK for, is lotion. We were able to get lotion for years, but 
this year it was taken from our canteen and packages, on the excuse that 
it was "not on property matrix." We need it here and medical refuses to 
give it out.

Another need is sweat shorts, so that we have the dignity of not being 
paraded about in boxer shorts while escorted to medical line or yard.

We are also seeking to be able to buy two cases of Top Ramen and 
woodless colored pencils, which could be added to canteen.

E) More TV channels -- denied by Warden Lewis. CDCR and PBSP keep 
falsely claiming that we have 27 cable channels. We actually have three 
cable channels and five network channels, which is less than all other 
SHU units across the state. We're asking for two or three more channels.

F) Allow hobby craft items: art paper, colored pens, small pieces of 
colored pencils, watercolors, chalk etc. We have gotten paper, pens and 
chalk so far, but many can't work with the chalk. We've found that 
Walkenhorst's sells "woodless colored pencils." See Walkenhorst's 2012 
Fall Catalogue, page 136, item E.

We have asked Pelican Bay staff to notify Walkenhorst's that SHU 
prisoners are allowed to purchase these sets of 12 and 24 woodless 
colored pencils for our packages. Associate Warden P.T. Smith tells us 
that only Sacramento CDCR headquarters can notify Walkenhorst's about 
allowing us to have items.

Thus, we are asking you to notify Walkenhorst's that we are allowed to 
have the woodless colored pencils in our packages.

G) Install pull-up and dip bars on SHU yards -- has not happened yet!

H) Additional issues: Warden denied our request to participate in 
"charity bake sales" stating "Get out of the SHU!" Unfair, and no kind 
of security risk. And the PIA mattresses being issued now equal NO 
mattress at all!

Again, the above are examples of problematic issues regarding our Five 
Core Demands. A more detailed list dealing with issues in demands Nos. 4 
and 5 will be forthcoming.

Your time, attention and assistance with the above is much appreciated.

Todd Ashker, Arturo Castellaños, Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa/Dewberry, Antonio 
Guillen

Nov. 28, 2012


      Part 2: Responsive Opposition to CDCR's Oct. 11, 2012, STG Pilot
      Program

Submitted Dec. 3, 2012, by Todd Ashker, Arturo Castellaños, Sitawa 
Nantambu Jamaa/Dewberry, and Antonio Guillen

To whom it may concern:

The CDCR's Oct. 11, 2012, Security Threat Group Pilot Program 
Instructional Memo *IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!* It fails to meet our 2011 Five 
Core Demands and is herby rejected for reasons briefly summarized in the 
examples below of the problems we have with the STG Pilot Program and 
what the CDCR needs to do to meet our demands and thereby keep their word.

See also our related oppositions to CDCR's March and June 2012 STG 
proposals. [See Pelican Bay Human Rights Movement presents 
counter-proposal opposing CDCR 'Security Threat Group Strategy' 
<http://sfbayview.com/2012/pelican-bay-human-rights-movement-presents-counter-proposal-opposing-cdcr-security-threat-group-strategy/> 
regarding the March proposal and Open letter to Gov. Jerry Brown: Stop 
the torture now 
<http://sfbayview.com/2012/open-letter-to-gov-jerry-brown-stop-the-torture-now/> 
regarding the June proposal.]

We have repeatedly made clear that the heart of our first three core 
demands is the requirement for substantive changes to SHU and Ad Seg 
policies and practices, which must include:

   1. An individualized accountability, behavior-based system when it
      comes to grounds for placement or retention in CDCR's SHU or Ad
      Seg solitary confinement cells. This means such cells are reserved
      for those prisoners who are charged with and found guilty of
      committing a serious, felonious type of rule violation that merits
      a "determinate" SHU term. Individual accountability also applies
      to privilege restrictions when such are abused by an individual.
      This equates to a demand for an end to "indeterminate" SHU
      confinement.
   2. Related demands for an end to progressively punitive SHU and Ad
      Seg policies and practices for the purpose of coercing prisoners
      into agreeing to become state informants: This demand includes our
      call for an end to the "debriefing" policy.
   3. A demand for humane treatment and conditions in the SHU and Ad Seg
      units, with a focus upon meaningful program opportunities and
      ability to gain privileges, based on criteria that are realistic
      and reasonable -- the purpose being to assist the prisoners with
      being able to return to the general prison population in the
      shortest amount of time possible; e.g., the voluntary
      participation in SHU programs equates to meaningful, additional
      privileges and the ability to earn good time off one's sentence in
      order to shorten the determinate SHU term.

The CDCR's Oct. 11, 2012, Pilot Program is not responsive to our above 
summarized demands, as exemplified below:

For more than 25 years the CDCR has used an alleged "gang management" 
policy and practice consisting of placing validated prison gang members 
and associates in SHU and Ad Seg solitary confinement cells -- 
indefinitely -- wherein prisoners are subjected to progressively more 
punitive conditions, for the purpose of coercing them into "debriefing" 
-- becoming a state informant to gain release from solitary by providing 
gang unit staff (IGI, or Institutional Gang Investigations) with 
verifiable information that harms other gang affiliates.

Between 1986 and 1999, the only way to get out of solitary was to 
parole, die, go insane or debrief. In 1999, in response to a court 
ruling, the CDCR came up with another alleged avenue for SHU release, 
wherein a prisoner able to go six years with zero documented gang 
activity can achieve "inactive" gang status and thereby might be 
released to general population. The "inactive" avenue for SHU release 
has proven to be a sham!

Notably, most of the prisoners in SHU for the past one to 40 years based 
on a "current active" validation have never been found guilty of 
committing an illegal, gang-related act. We're talking about decades of 
indefinite, punitive solitary confinement, based on alleged current 
active gang involvement, consisting of innocent association or political 
type activity and/or the unsubstantiated allegations of involvement in 
illegal gang activity by debriefer, confidential informants, deemed 
"reliable" by IGI -- but no charges were filed! IGI's validations are 
rubber-stamped by the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) and/or Special 
Services Unit (SSU), UCC (Unit Classification Committee) and all levels 
of the 602 appeals process, as per admissions by former PBSP Warden 
McGrath during his testimony in the 2009 Lira trial 
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101501841>.

The Oct. 11, 2012, STG Pilot Program claims to "change" the present SHU 
policy and practice in the following ways: To "provide individual 
accountability of offenders" (Pilot Program Memo, page 1, Purpose) based 
on "a new behavior-based system, which will serve to enhance the 
existing intelligence-based validation system. The implementation of 
this process will include an STG behavior-based disciplinary matrix, 
which will provide for additional procedural due process safeguards and 
a system of individual accountability" (page 2, Key Revisions).

However, the truth is that the Pilot Program fails to change the present 
policies and practices at issue in any substantive meaningful ways, and 
it will actually result in a significant expansion of the numbers of 
prisoners kept indefinitely in SHU and Ad Seg solitary confinement 
torture cells. The numbers will expand to tens of thousands, because the 
CDCR STG Pilot Program targets not only prison gang affiliates, but OCS 
will now target any and all groups of three or more prisoners who are 
deemed to pose a "potential" threat (Pilot Program Memo, pages 1 and 9). 
This failure to change the present system is also demonstrated by:

A) The prisoners validated as STG-1 members (i.e., prison gang members) 
will continue to be subject to automatic, indefinite SHU confinement, 
solely based on the validation. There is no requirement that a formal 
charge of gang related misconduct be filed, nor any related requirement 
for a formal hearing to take place to determine guilt or innocence as 
per the preponderance of credible evidence standard, as required by 
CDCR's formal rule violation hearing process. One's only avenue for 
release from the SHU is to parole, die, go insane, debrief or 
successfully complete the four-year minimum Step Down Program (Pilot 
Program Memo, Sections 200.2; 500; 600.3; 700; 1200).

Additionally, any and all prisoners validated as STG affiliates will 
continue to be placed and/or retained in SHU and Ad Seg solitary 
confinement cells indefinitely, based on alleged intelligence indicating 
"confirmed STG behavior or activity," defined as "STG behavior which is 
discovered and confirmed to have occurred. Confirmation can be obtained 
through two processes: 1) a guilty finding in a STG rule violation 
report; and/ or 2) any document that clearly describes STG 
behavior/activities incorporated within the validation or continued STG 
behavior package, submitted to the OCS for Special Agent assessment and 
recommendation; and which is affirmed by an STG Unit Classification 
Committee" (Pilot Program, attachment A, STG definitions at "Confirmed 
STG Behavior." See also definitions for Step Down Program, Steps 1 and 
2, regarding use of intelligence and these steps housing prisoners based 
on *influence*.)

The above is also supported in the Pilot Program Memo at Section 600.3: 
Validated Affiliate with Confirmed STG Behavior Outside the Disciplinary 
Process:

"(a) A STG affiliate determined to have confirmed STG behavior or 
intelligence, ... which occurred outside ... formal disciplinary process 
shall be documented in a CDCR form 128-B, General Chrono (confidential 
chrono, if appropriate). The activity or behavior must have occurred 
within the last four years. Investigators shall establish reliability 
per CCR Section 3321 when confidential information is used and shall be 
recorded within the chrono. This confirmed STG behavior or activity 
shall consist of the following:

"Behavior, activity or intelligence items as indentified in Section 
600.1: Validation Source Criteria totaling at least 10 additional points 
and identified subsequent to the validation process. This process shall 
only be utilized if the circumstances cannot be otherwise addressed 
through the disciplinary process."

Everyone familiar with CDCR OCS, SSU and IGI's SHU and Ad Seg policies 
and practices over the course of the past 10 to 40 years will recognize 
the above referenced Pilot Program. "Changes" to the present policy and 
practices equate to NO substantive changes at all.

The facts are CDCR staff have always been required to issue Rules 
Violation Reports to prisoners who are alleged to have violated a rule, 
when such is supported by credible evidence, per CCR, Title 15, Section 
3312, et seq. In spite of this long standing regulation, most of the 
prisoners have not been charged with nor found guilty of an illegal gang 
related act! We've been subjected to decades of SHU isolation based on 
the criteria referenced above regarding "confirmed STG behavior outside 
the disciplinary process."

With the above in mind, the only "change" to the current policy is a 
four-year review in the absence of being found guilty of an STG related 
Rules Violation Report, wherein documented and confirmed STG behavior or 
activity, totaling at least 10 additional points (over the course of 
four years) will be cause for continued indefinite SHU confinement, as 
compared to the present six-year review for consideration of inactive 
gang status, so long as there is no documented gang activity (over the 
course of six years).

The above process will be applied to those prisoners presently serving 
an indeterminate SHU term based on their validated status and they 
"shall be afforded a Departmental Review Board (DRB) hearing, to 
determine their appropriate placement and/or retention within the 
SHU/Step Down Program or potential release to general population ... 
(T)he DRB will conduct an assessment of the preceding four years to 
determine the existence of on-going STG behavior" (Pilot Program Memo, 
page 3).

Based on all of the above referenced Pilot Program points, we can expect 
the DRB criteria used for their "assessment" of the preceding four years 
"to determine the existence of on-going STG behavior" will be the same 
criteria used for a six-year active/inactive review, with a focus on 
finding any alleged "documented items of current behavior or activity" 
occurring within the past four years totaling 10 or more points (i.e., a 
"continued STG behavior package" type of assessment) whereupon they will 
determine what step one is eligible for in the Step Down Program.

The DRB will utilize the sections of the Pilot Program referenced above 
because most of the validated affiliates -- in SHU and Ad Seg for 
decades -- have no STG related rule violation guilty findings. So 
they'll have to utilize Pilot Program Section 600.3 (referenced above) 
because the CDCR and OCS have no intention of releasing certain STG 
affiliates to general prison population -- e.g., those in PBSP Short 
Corridor who are there based on "influence," which in turn is based on 
confidential informants' or debriefers' claims and/or IGI's subjective 
opinion, which is impossible to disprove! See Pilot Program Memo, page 
41, re SDP, Steps 1 and 2, reference to "influence."

All of the above referenced Pilot Program points are *NOT ACCEPTABLE!*

What it basically boils down to is a CDCR OCS sentence enhancement of 
four years to life for alleged STG behavior or activity, without a 
requirement for any related formal charge(s) or guilt of committing any 
illegal, gang-related act! Remember, this sentence enhancement can be 
applied to STG affiliates for minor non-criminal associational activity 
(e.g., Pilot Program Memo, Section 600.2 (a), (b), (c) and 600.1, 
Disciplinary Matrix, bottom four boxes, re tattoos, roll call, group 
exercise, greeting cards and art work, acting in a leadership role, 
displaying behavior to organize and control other inmates etc.). Being 
deemed "guilty" of such innocuous and/or vague activity is cause for a 
minimum of four years of indefinite solitary confinement and inability 
to earn good time credits off one's sentence, in addition to all the 
other punitive conditions such confinement entails.

This amounts to a minimum of four years of subjection to conditions that 
are psychologically and physically torturous to prisoners and their 
loved ones on the outside for the purpose of coercing them into becoming 
state informants via debriefing -- without being formally charged and/or 
for insignificant violation(s) of minor, associational-type activity!


      The truth is that the Pilot Program fails to change the present
      policies and practices at issue in any substantive meaningful
      ways, and it will actually result in a significant expansion of
      the numbers of prisoners kept indefinitely in SHU and Ad Seg
      solitary confinement torture cells.

The above points exemplify the CDCR OCS' intent to maintain the present 
status quo of confining thousands of prisoners in long term solitary 
cells, subject to progressively punitive conditions, for coercive 
purposes. What is worse is they insist on doing this in spite of the 
fact that such practices violate U.S. constitutional and international 
laws and treaties, as well as state law regarding enhancements and 
sanctions for gang-related activity. (The applicable California Penal 
Code is 186.22, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court. See for 
instance People v. Castenada, 23 Cal. 4th 743 (2000) 
<http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/23/743.html>, the leading 
case. See also People v. Moreno, 68 C.A. 4th 1198 (1998), and People v. 
Gardeley, 14 Cal. 4th 605 (1996), and People v. Gomez, 235 Cal. Rptr. 2d 
957, 971.)

Again, this is not acceptable, nor is it a sensible, responsible use of 
the taxpayers' money to utilize costly SHU and Ad Seg cells for an 
indefinite time period of at least four years for such minor infractions 
of CDCR OCS' made up rules. These sorts of small infractions can be 
addressed in the general prison population via progressive levels of 
restrictions on various programs and/or privileges. SHU and Ad Seg cells 
are approximately $20,000 costlier than general population cells per year!

B) The Pilot Program memo also claims the change in policy will provide 
"additional layers of procedural due process" regarding validation(s) 
and continued STG behavior and related SHU placement, retention and Step 
Down Program issues (Pilot Program Memo, page 1, Purpose, and Sections 
100 and 400-800).

For the past 25-plus years, many SHU and Ad Seg prisoners have received 
CDCR's version of "procedural due process" wherein IGI's decisions and 
recommendations are automatically upheld by all levels of review by OCS, 
committees and prisoner grievance process 602 appeals. The Pilot Program 
changes nothing, because each level of review will still be conducted by 
CDCR employees who are trained and directed by OCS, SSU or IGI.

Therefore, this part of the Pilot Program is *NOT ACCEPTABLE!* Real due 
process requires substantive as well as procedural aspects and at least 
one level of meaningful review by a neutral third party, a qualified 
monitor who conducts a thorough, substantive, procedural review.

C) The Pilot Program memo claims the four year (minimum) Step Down 
Program (SDP) will provide STG affiliates with a way to earn release 
from indefinite solitary confinement without having to debrief (Pilot 
Program Memo Sections 700 et seq.).

CDCR's SDP is *NOT ACCEPTABLE!* Four years is too long and the proposed 
programs and privileges for each step are not realistic, reasonable or 
meaningful.

CDCR presents the SDP as "an incentive based multi-step process for the 
management of STG affiliates. This program will assign, transition, and 
monitor inmates who by their behavior have demonstrated the need for 
CDCR's utilization of special strategies for their management.

"The SDP shall normally be completed in five steps and provides a 
process for inmates engaged in STG behavior or activities to demonstrate 
their ability to refrain from this type of behavior, preparing them for 
return to non-segregated housing and eventual release to the community" 
(Pilot Program Memo Section 700).

Unfortunately, the CDCR Pilot Program for an SDP is structured in a way 
that is demonstrative of their true intent of maintaining and greatly 
expanding upon the current policy and practice of keeping thousands of 
prisoners in punitive solitary confinement cells indefinitely, until 
they die, go insane or debrief.

The first three and a half years of CDCR's SDP entails a type of 
solitary confinement wherein the prisoners spend virtually 24 hours a 
day alone in a cell on the small-cell yard. The CDCR states this will be 
"a period of observation" during which the prisoner will be expected to 
keep his bed made and complete in-cell, self-directed journals and earn 
incentive-based privileges (Pilot Program Memo, Sections 700 through 
700.5, pages 40-50).

This makes no sense! How can you "closely observe" someone for the 
purpose of assessing their behavior or activity, when they are in a type 
of solitary confinement 24/7? How does a minimum of three and a half 
years of doing self-directed journals for basically trivial and 
insignificant privileges prepare them for return to non-segregated 
housing and eventual release to the community?

A Step Down Program should be a maximum of 18 months in duration for the 
purpose of enabling prisoners to shorten their determinate SHU terms. In 
today's SHU and Ad Seg units and Level 4 general population prisons, the 
prisoners are closely monitored 24/7. Any SDP needs to be based on 
realistic, reasonable adult programming criteria and meaningful 
incentives for each step.

For example, *Step 1* can be a maximum of 90 days of basic in-cell type 
of programming. *Step 2* can be a maximum of six months of more 
meaningful, interactive type of programming, such as small group 
activities in cages, small group yard etc., where observations of 
prisoners' behavior and activities actually mean something towards 
assessing one's potential for successful transition to general 
population. *Step 3* can be for a maximum of nine months of small group 
programming, larger group yard, dining together. *Step 4* can be for 
monitored status in a general population type of setting.

The incentives for each step need to be realistic and meaningful -- for 
example, the ability to earn good time credits, regular phone calls, 
contact visits, additional packages, canteen, property etc., beginning 
at Step 2. Once in the SDP, sanctions for STG behavior or activities 
must be solely based on a formal charge and guilty finding for a serious 
rule violation linked to a STG.

Additionally, the CDCR's mission priority is founded upon the principle 
of promoting and protecting public safety and the related operation of a 
reasonably safe and secure prison system. CDCR presently has the 
opportunity to back up these catch phrases with action by creating a 
sensible program for the purpose of transitioning the present long term 
SHU prisoners to a general population prison environment in a reasonably 
safe and secure manner. Their presence in general population will 
enhance the safety and security of the prison system as a whole, which 
will enable CDCR to provide prisoners with meaningful rehabilitation 
type programs and thereby help prisoners be better prepared for 
achieving success upon their parole to the community (see Aug. 12, 2012, 
Agreement to End Hostilities 
<http://sfbayview.com/2012/california-prisoners-make-historic-call-to-end-hostilities-between-racial-groups-in-california-prisons-and-jails/>).

The CDCR can do this right now, at little to no cost, via the creation 
of the MCU [MAX-B] type program that we detailed in our March 2012 
Counter-Proposal 
<http://sfbayview.com/2012/pelican-bay-human-rights-movement-presents-counter-proposal-opposing-cdcr-security-threat-group-strategy/>.

It's a simple matter, for Pilot Program start-up purposes, to review all 
PBSP SHU prisoners' files. Those on indefinite SHU status for 
validation, who have not been found guilty of a formally charged, 
gang-related offense -- a serious RVR (Rules Violation Report) -- in the 
last two years, who are three to five years or less from their parole 
date or parole eligibility hearing are immediately released to the MCU 
(Management Control Unit) on PBSP B Facility, where they can still be 
closely observed while actually interacting with each other and staff in 
a less restrictive yet still controlled environment. This is a model for 
success!


      Conclusion

It has been more than 13 months since we agreed to suspend our 
non-violent, peaceful protest hunger strike actions in response to 
CDCR's top administrators' admissions that all of our Five Core Demands 
were reasonable and would be responded to via substantively meaningful 
changes to the policies and practices at issue.

This has NOT HAPPENED, as summarized in the above examples. (See also 
our related opposition and rejection statements responding to CDCR's 
March 
<http://sfbayview.com/2012/pelican-bay-human-rights-movement-presents-counter-proposal-opposing-cdcr-security-threat-group-strategy/> 
and June 
<http://sfbayview.com/2012/open-letter-to-gov-jerry-brown-stop-the-torture-now/> 
2012 STG proposals.)

To date, the CDCR's top officials have acted in bad faith, including 
ignoring our prior opposition points and counter-proposal.

Therefore, at this point, we request a face-to-face meeting with the top 
CDCR officials, authorized and able to make decisions on the spot, for 
the purpose of changing the Oct. 11, 2012, STG Pilot Program Memo in 
ways responsive to our Five Core Demands, in line with the examples set 
forth in this document.

This meeting can be in person or via video conference in PBSP SHU.

Let this serve as notice that failure to change the Pilot Program in 
ways that are responsive to our Five Core Demands, as exemplified in 
this document, will be deemed to be just cause for our collective 
resumption of our non-violent, peaceful protest action(s).

Thank you for your time and attention.

/Send our brothers some love and light: Todd Ashker, C-58191, PBSP SHU 
D4-121, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City CA 95532, and Sitawa Nantambu 
Jamaa/Dewberry, C-35671, PBSP SHU D1-117L, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City 
CA 95532. Mail to Arturo Castellaños and Antonio Guillen remains 
severely restricted. These four men are the "main reps" for the 
California prison movement best known for the 2011 hunger strikes that 
involved 12,000 prisoners at their peak./

-- 
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20121228/1126a45c/attachment.html>


More information about the PPnews mailing list