Law student tells MIM off; Prisoners, MIM and a lawyer pick up the 
slack

by MIM and prisoners

During one of MIM's revolutionary educational events on a 
university campus, we met a law student who appeared interested in 
assisting MIM and prisoners develop MIM's Serve the People 
Prisoners' Legal Clinic (PLC). MIM asked the student to read, edit 
and critique a prisoner's submission for MIM Legal Notes. MIM also 
enlightened the student to the fact that prisoners are prevented 
from receiving educational, legal and political materials that we 
send through MIM's Free Books for Prisoners Program. The student 
was then asked (as a task to put liberal critical sentiments into 
proletarian practice) to read and critique/help improve the anti-
censorship packet that MIM sends to prisoners.

The student returned the assignments without any critique for 
improvements. Instead, s/he wrote: "I also disagree with MIM's 
approach to the censorship issue. Your packet of material 
encourages individual inmates to proceed pro se or seek out 
jailhouse lawyers. MIM does not seem to have worked out a coherent 
litigation strategy to make sure that the first cases have 
favorable fact patterns and are brought in more liberal federal 
circuits. Your approach will likely create bad law. If MIM doesn't 
have the lawyers or funds to carry out a sensible litigation 
campaign, I suggest that you leave it to the ACLU or some other 
group that does. I'm afraid that after reading these two packets 
of material [and that is all s/he read, nothing officially 
published in MIM Legal Notes -MIM] I have come to the conclusion 
that I don't think I can help prisoners through MIM's project." 
S/he ended the letter by saying, "...From the few things that I 
have seen, I believe that MIM is doing positive harm to prisoner's 
rights."

MIM's explanation of our revolutionary strategy and legal tactics 
were ignored, despite the clarification that we don't advocate 
that prisoners go onto the court battlefield unprepared. 
Conversely, prisoners working on the PLC and a allied lawyer put 
their criticisms into practice by making improvements on the anti-
censorship pack, the original MLN submission and sending MIM 
additional information. Prisoners also responded to the student.

Prisoner #1 responds to student nihilism

I would like to note that it is not "pro se prisoners," as a 
group, that make bad case law. Nor is it just prisoners. Bad case 
law is the product of failure to properly research and/or 
articulate the issues. There has been a lot of bad case law that 
can be attributed to attorneys as well as prisoners not doing 
their homework. The key to preventing pro se prisoners from making 
bad case law is to teach them how to properly research issues, and 
to assist them by informing them of the most recent state of the 
law. We have an opportunity to provide this through the PLC 
articles.

To properly do this, we need people to ensure that the articles 
that are published are accurate. We also need to make sure that 
information that is intended to educate prisoners on how to do 
legal research is accurate. We need to check each article and 
handout before it is printed or mailed to prisoners. An example of 
this is the enclosed handout that I received. I went through it 
and made suggested changes. The practice of asking other legal 
minds to review articles and provide comments will assist in 
preventing inaccurate information from being printed.

Even then some of them might be printed. In that case, we need to 
inform MIM when an article is inaccurate. In this way, both MIM 
and the prisoners will be made aware of the inaccuracies prior to 
filing their pleadings in the courts.

Prisoners have fought for legal gains and won:

What have you done?

Prisoners have no choice other than to file claims in pro se. That 
is to say, if they do not file pro se, they will not get the 
majority of their issues before the courts. Also, if it were not 
for prisoners filing pro se, there would not be cases to rely upon 
such as ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941). It states that the 
right of access to the courts was violated by a Michigan policy 
requiring the parole board officials to review all legal documents 
prepared by inmates prior to filing with the court. In Johnson V. 
Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 21 L.Ed2d 718, 89 S.Ct. 747 (1969), prisoners 
argued that prisons can't prevent prisoners from assisting other 
prisoners in obtaining access to the court when there is no 
alternative. In Bounds V. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 52 L.Ed2d 72, 97 
S.Ct. 1491 (1977), prisoners won the ruling that meaningful access 
to the courts must include a program by which inmates are able to 
obtain effective legal assistance.

Prisoners also won Hadix V. Johnson, 694 F.Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 
1988). Hadix is a class action conditions of confinement case 
brought in 1980 on behalf of male prisoners at what was the 
Central Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. It was 
brought as a result of riots at the prison. In 1985 a consent 
decree was entered into which covers physical and sanitary 
conditions, education and programming, food and safety issues, and 
law library services. As a result of the consent decree in this 
case, SPSM will eventually become four separate prisons. The 
consent decree is still active. It is the only reason that the 
Egeler facility still has a college program.

Prisoners won Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Gideon V 
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) that states indigent defendants 
are entitled to counsel.

Cain prisoners fight for justice:

MDOC violates Michigan Constitution

Cain et al V. MDOC is a class action started by prisoners. The 
Cain case was filed by pro se prisoners at the State Prison of 
Southern Michigan in 1988, because the Michigan Department of 
Corrections issued a policy directive, PD- BCF 53.01, which would 
drastically limit the types and kinds of property that prisoners 
in Michigan would be allowed to possess. The policy called for the 
prisoners to send lawfully acquired personal property out of the 
prison without being justly compensated. This property includes 
art supplies, athletic wear including shoes, books, and scarves, 
gloves, and hats.

Prisoners at the State Prison of Southern Michigan filed Suit in 
the Court of Claims claiming that the effects of the policy 
constituted a "taking" of their property without compensation, in 
violation of the Michigan Constitution. The prisoners' suit 
included claims that the statute and policy would effectively take 
their property without just compensation, in violation of Article 
X 2, of the Michigan Constitution. They also claimed that the 
statute and policy would operate to deprive class members of 
property without the procedural or substantive due process 
required by the Michigan Constitution.

The trial court granted a temporary restraining order on April 
27,1988. Thereafter, the Legislature enacted MCL 800.42, 
attempting to circumvent the temporary restraining order.

The Prisoners filed amended complaints to include claims of denial 
of access to the courts, the MDOC classification system, and the 
illegal telephone tax on persons accepting calls from prisoners. 
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction of the 
restrictive property policy after a hearing on September 20,1989. 
The order enjoining the policy was signed on November 18,1989.

Although the trial court ruled against the prisoners on December 
2,1997, after 10 years, on the clothing issues, the case is still 
in trial on the other issues. Access to the Courts is a 
constitutional right. Prisoners have no other way to fight for 
their freedom or to defend against suits being brought against 
them. It is the MDOC's position that they do not have to provide 
materials to allow prisoners to fight claims brought against the 
prisoner by the State under the State Reimbursement Act. They also 
claim that they do not have to provide materials to allow research 
on family law matters, divorces, or claims for wrongful death 
arising out of their criminal case. The classification system in 
the MDOC is also important. This affects prisoners ability to 
receive programming opportunities and is looked at by the parole 
board. If a prisoner is in a high security level it is unlikely 
that the prisoner will receive a parole. Therefore, the claims in 
Cain are very significant for prisoners.

If the prisoners would not have filed the case in pro per, the 
issues would have never been reviewed by the trial court. The case 
began in 1988; trial counsel was not appointed until 1995. Up to 
that point, the prisoners acted in pro per.

These are just a few of the pro per cases that may not have even 
been presented to the courts if prisoners were not encouraged to 
file pro per pleadings. Prisoners have no choice in the matter if 
they want to fight for their most basic rights. In fact, the 
Michigan Legislature has introduced a bill that specifically 
states that the courts may not appoint counsel to file an action 
for prisoners. Therefore, it is not a question of not encouraging 
prisoners to file pro per pleadings. The question is: "are you 
going to assist them to file correctly, or are you going to sit 
back and be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?" 
It is hoped that you will decide to be part of the solution.

Law student ignores prisoners

The above accounts of successful prisoner suits was written by a 
Michigan prisoner and sent to the law student (along with the rest 
of the letters). The law student responded to the prisoner's 
letter after ignoring MIM's initially patient explanation of our 
(though limited, still workable) points of unity. S/he said: "I 
prefer to "be a part of the solution" in my own way. I have 
decided to try to help prisoners through legal clinics and 
political action while in school, and plan to become a public 
defender after my clerkship. I have come to the conclusion that 
working with MIM would not be an effective way to generate change. 
As a lawyer I obviously believe in the power of persuasion, but I 
do think that the likelihood of my changing my mind is very slim 
... I think what I saw (viz. not only an article submission but 
also frightening handouts of quasi-legal advice to prisoners) is 
sufficient for me to make up my mind, especially since there are 
so many other opportunities to get involved that seem much more 
useful to me. ..."

Prisoner #2 replies in plain proletarian English

In the law student's criticism of the original article, you stated 
that it was a political, not a legal argument. The issue is 
political but it is also legal. We must understand that from the 
political comes the legal. We must also understand that none of 
the actions or the things the parole boards are doing comes first 
from a legal standpoint. They have their references from something 
political. In other words, had it not been for a certain 
"political mindset" there would not be the "three-strikes" laws. 
There would not be any laws that bar judges from having discretion 
to give out sentences they are best familiar with. There would not 
be laws preventing judges from taking into consideration factors 
as to why the offending person offended, what that person has 
going on in her or his life and what support systems they have.

It is because of political motives that laws bar judges from doing 
anything other than imposing a cold and sterile sentence, whereby 
negating everything else about the case. The political and the 
legal cannot really be separated. Not in this country it can't. 
... 

What I am attempting to show you is this is a serious issue that 
involves law and is joined with politics. The legal aspect of it 
is that the parole boards have found baseless reasons to deny 
eligible and parolable individuals paroles. Why? Because they have 
no one to answer too anymore other than governor John Engler, who 
conveniently dismantled the Parole Board Commission (who oversaw 
the parole board) the moment the new board was instituted. There 
are many things the parole board isn't fairly doing and the 
article I presented is one that should be acknowledged, read, 
discussed an debated on a wide level and with an open mind. Yes, 
the article is directly related to the law.

[...]You must understand, filing in pro se to have prisoners' 
rights acknowledged is a must and it is the only tool (at this 
time) we prisoners have. And we deserve the right to have fair and 
impartial representation. You worry about us prisoners 
"antagonizing" the parole board but you are not realizing that we 
can't antagonize the parole board. They already have a set agenda.

Further in your letter you stated how you "disagree" with MIM's 
approach to the "censorship issue. You've suggested that the ACLU 
or some other group handle these issues of censorship and for 
prisoners not to proceed in court in pro se. I have to 
respectfully disagree with you. For one, it wasn't the ACLU that 
allowed prisoners to have many of the rights we have achieved. It 
was us prisoners who have toiled and struggled to have these 
changes made through our tireless pursuit via litigation. It was 
us prisoners who sacrificed and suffered transfers, shakedowns, 
bogus misconduct reports, harassment and other abuses and 
indignities that caused us to obtain the few rights we have. It 
took the [rebellion] and the blood and death of prisoners in 
Attica in the 1970's to win basic humyn rights. It sure wasn't the 
ACLU that came running to our aid. And if you look at most 
prisoner cases where we have obtained favorable action, it was 
through sheer determination and the fortitude of prisoners to 
stand up when a wrong has been committed to obtain some measure of 
justice.

[...]

MIM doesn't have to have the lawyers to help us prisoners win or 
fight our battles. That is not MIM's job. MIM's job is to assist 
us and to report the facts of our conditions to people like you 
with the hope that people like you will be so inclined to lend a 
hand. A litigation campaign doesn't have to necessarily be funded 
and or promoted by MIM, you know. MIM can be the vehicle to have 
such a campaign instituted, but that is not MIM's job and it is 
wrong to suggest this of MIM to do. No, the job should be The 
Peoples. Those who have knowledge of the laws and who have access 
to certain things and who can help us advance our goals by doing 
small tasks, if not a big part.

Nevertheless, you have a right to enjoy criticisms and you have a 
right to have your criticisms heard and respected, just as we all 
do. This is also a part of building and growing. We must have 
this. But do not allow these [criticisms] to prevent you from 
furthering any work or have you refrain from supporting in what 
way you can. That only hurts the entire collective. Why? Because 
each of us are part of the collective and like a jig saw puzzle, 
if a piece is missing it disfigures or lacks the completion of the 
whole. That is why we must think along party lines and do what is 
best for the overall and not just for one person or a few.

Prisoner #2 ended h/h letter saying: "I welcome any comments you 
may have to my letter.  And I hope you will give what I have said 
some considerable thought."

Join the struggle;

Don't clog the wheel with liberalism

And in the student's last letter, s/he wrote: "The first principle 
of being a doctor is "do no harm." Maybe activists and lawyers 
should try to live up to that ideal."

MIM's Serve the People Prisoners' Legal Clinic is not a large 
program, nor is the information the PLC provides legal advice. The 
PLC is geared toward leading prisoners in a general direction of 
fighting winnable battles within the imperialist system to 
alleviate some of the insane and brutal conditions that prisoners 
face. MIM works with prisoners to develop the PLC as a tool for 
prisoners to learn from one another and assist one another when 
most lawyers would ignore the prisoner. MIM does work with 
lawyers, even the ACLU where possible. When we work with non-
revolutionary lawyers, we ensure that the work is representing 
proletarian internationalist interests. When that alliance can be 
made, we make it.

Obviously the student does not wish to be a part of that work -- 
in the interests of the international proletariat. S/he represents 
many nihilistic academics that have liberal criticisms of 
imperialism's manifestations, but would not want to take part in 
ending imperialism entire.

The second prisoner letter hits on a very important point. Though 
we welcome allied lawyers, it is not our job to prepare court 
battles and rectify the Amerikan INjustice system from within. Our 
job is building revolution and support for Maoism because we have 
no hope that several hundred liberal lawyers acting as public 
pretenders (as many prisoners call them) could make a dent, even 
with the "best intentions". Even if the PLC did not exist, MIM 
considers our work and the work that we organize with prisoners to 
accomplish, the most advanced because it addresses the root 
problem.

Lastly, for liberal lawyers considering which side to step into, 
consider the fact that allied lawyers -- ones actively fighting 
censorship or other problems on behalf of prisoners -- said the 
same thing about prisoners filing pro se as the prisoners 
themselves did. Also consider that MIM would see this liberal's 
contribution to ending prison oppression much greater if people 
like h/h took a corporate legal position and used the bulk of the 
money to fund independent proletarian institutions, like the PLC, 
Books for Prisoners Program, MIM Notes,and countless revolutionary 
programs that do not currently exist.