[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
December 28, 2012
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,
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
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
Nov. 28, 2012
Part 2: Responsive Opposition to CDCR's Oct. 11, 2012, STG Pilot
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'
regarding the March proposal and 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
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
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
The above is also supported in the Pilot Program Memo at Section 600.3:
Validated Affiliate with Confirmed STG Behavior Outside the Disciplinary
"(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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the PPnews