The prison oppressors have maliciously transferred me to Jester III Unit
here in Richmond, Texas. I have filed numerous grievance complaints and
indicated filing a Section 1983 civil lawsuit, due to prison staff
violating my Constitutional rights.
I had to wait about 15 days before I was allowed to write to you all,
because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) indigent program
only allows me to mail out 5 personal letters a month. Once I have
submitted the 5 letters, I’m forced to wait until the next 30-day period
starts. I have filed a grievance, and hope a class action lawsuit is
presented to the court so that I can join in.
According to Guajardo v. Estelle 432 F.Supp 1373, prison
officials must furnish postage and stationary to indigent prisoners
weekly, without a waiting period. By denying me communication with my
family, friends and advocates, it hinders me from informing people of
the extreme mistreatment I’m constantly subjected to here.
I respectfully request the recent issue of Under Lock & Key
be mailed to my new address, plus any study material to help me teach
the 5 principles of the United Front for Peace in Prisons (Independence,
Internationalism, Growth, Unity, and Peace) within the prison
environment. I greatly appreciate my beloved comrades’ assistance and
highly need support. I will write to you and other comrades in the
struggle as much as is possible or allowed.
MIM(Prisons) responds: It is all too common that laws are set,
but that the problems continue because prison officials simply don’t
follow the laws. As this correspondent writes, there are already legal
standards for how indigent correspondence should be handled in Texas.
Yet the Texas Board of Criminal Justice modified TDCJ’s correspondence
rules in opposition to this law.
In communication with Mumia Abu-Jamal, in Mumia’s book Jailhouse
Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., Ed Mead
explains this phenomenon well:
“[The courts] may order that you have more peanut butter on the main
line but they’re not going to do anything significant or fundamental in
terms of serving the public interest. And that is the limitation of
jailhouse lawyering, you can get yourself out but there will be another
one to replace you. You can get a friend out; there will be another one
to replace him. You can file a prisoner rights suit but they’ll just not
enforce it… or if it’s enforced, after a while it just dissipates, like
a puddle of water evaporating and nobody really notices that it’s gone.”
For those issues that people notice are dwindling away, such as the
restrictions on indigent mail in Texas, what role can lawsuits play in
ensuring these rights are protected? Our correspondent would like to
join on to a Class Action suit on this issue, and surely there are
plenty of Texas comrades who would be interested in something similar.
Ed Mead breaks it down:
“[T]he courts are a part of the State’s apparatus of repression… and the
State is the means by which one class suppresses the interests of
another class. And since the police and the prisons are a part of that
and the courts as well, none of these enforcement mechanisms are going
to abolish themselves. Once you get beyond the point of litigating over
‘we want more peanut butter on the main line,’ if you’re looking for
substantial issues, then the courts aren’t the place to go…
“And the way I look at it is that the prison is the factory that turns
out the product. And that product is angry people who are released to
the streets full of rage, which gets taken out on their family members,
their neighbors, and the community. And to try to treat individual
products that the factory spews out, it’s spewing them out faster than
you could possibly fix the problem. You need to focus on shutting the
factory down. And the courts aren’t going to be of any assistance in
that.”
In the context of our anti-imperialist organizing, we see lawsuits as
having two functions. First, they can be a way to organize people by
bringing them into political struggle, and demonstrating the limitations
of the injustice system. Second, when successful, lawsuits can help to
make space for this revolutionary organizing. Lifting the severe
restrictions on indigent correspondence would definitely be better for
people who are submitting articles to Under Lock & Key,
participating in our correspondence study groups, or just keeping their
ULK subscription active. And we’re sure that most of our
comrades behind bars don’t just write to us! But even if this
restriction were lifted, as it should be, there would just be some other
injustice being thrown our way. Or eventually the law would be
“forgotten” and we’d have to go to court over the same thing, again.
Ed Mead is a former prisoner, jailhouse lawyer, founder of Prison
Legal News, and long-time revolutionary. Ey presently publish the
newsletter The Rock and recently had
eir
autobiography published by Kersplebedeb. With Ed’s vast and
long-time experience in the anti-imperialist prisoner-focused movement,
ey has this to say about putting our legal efforts into a broader
context of struggle: “The main thing is to put jailhouse lawyering in a
context of class struggle. And when you put it in that context its
limitations become abundantly clear.”
Mumia reflects on Ed’s perspective on jailhouse lawyering,
“For this one man, jailhouse law was a doorway into other realms of
social reality, where the courts, for all their pomp and ceremony, were
largely irrelevant to the larger social struggles rippling through
society. What Mead learned was that jailhouse law was simply a means; it
was not an end. It had, in Mead’s view, severe limitations.”
To move beyond these limitations, we expand our scope. While this legal
system fails us, we instead aim to set the stage for communist
revolution on these shores. We have various campaigns and projects
centered around this goal, which we report on regularly on this website
and in Under Lock & Key.
