Political Persecution

Free Speech in Amerikkka

Myth or Reality?

Presented By:
Pelican Bay

Human Rights
Movement
Fiedes

e sad cenufied for pubbcaon 8 13 13 (ovdes s

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

Inre JAMES CRAWFORD.
ou Habeas Corpus,

A6

1Del Norte Counry
No. HCPB 10-5295)

uper. Ct.

Peitioner James Cravwford. au inmate housed at Pefican Bay State Prison and a
validated zang member. atempred to send a letier through the prisca mail system. The
lemer 135 addressed 10 2 newspaper and arzued that cerrain California inmates 1inchuding
petitioner should be recoanized as political prisoners. Prison officials confiscated the
leter after concluding it s eatened prison security because i it petitioner refers 1o

himself 23 2 “New Afrikan Nationalist Revoluriona ‘and because it could contain

hidden messages prowioting gang
There is yo evidence in the record supportin the comtention that the eter

promotes gang activiry. contains coded messages. or oterwise poses 2 threat 1o prison

cecnriry e therefore conclude that conficcation of the lerer violates petitioner s First
Amendunent right 10 free speech. grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus. and order

hat petitioner's confiscared leter be sent 1o the addressee.

e s
This landmark, precedent-setting decision won by MutopeDuguima (5/n James Crawford) from
the Pelican Bay SHU recognizes the First Amendment rights of prisoners - even those
condemned to solitary confinement torture.

3

Thus, today prison officials and the prison intelligence unit have attempted to create a
fallacious narrative in order to suppress our creative thought and our abilty to collectively
develop solutions for the many social il afflcting our communitie, particularly speaking of
New Afrikans.

‘They have gone o far as to boldly proclaim that the term New Afrikan was created by the
(BGF) and that those who identify a5 or use the term are declaring their allsgiance to the BGF,
which has been declared a pison gang. They have sought to suppress is usage by validating
(e designating as a gang member or associate) anyone who uses the term or who dares.
mention the name George Jackson. .

In Harrison v.1GI, 2010 WL 653137 (N..Cal. Feb. 22, 2010, they argued, “Black August, New
iikan Revolutionary Nationalism, The New Afrikan Collctive Think Tank (NCTT), George
Jackson University (G1U), and the New Afikan ntitute of Criminology 101 all promore the
BGE." They offered no proof of their outrageous allegations, and Judge Susan liston found tha
defendants take a very expansive view of what might “promote” a prison gang’s licit activties
and apply it with gusto, when the First Amendment requires a more nuanced approach
(Harrison, supra, 2010 WL 653137, at p. 6).

Judge liston further found that it appeared that prison offcials had taken a race-based
‘approach and banned allthings Afrikan-American under the guise of controlling the BGF.

Even still,the slence as it relates to the First Amendment continued. The prison intelligence
unit continued its quest to criminalize ideological thought, and courts continued engaging in
fallaious reasoning in order to uphold a blatant perversion of the First Amendment.

Judge liston further found that it appeared that prison officials had taken a race-based
approach and banned allthings Afrikan-American under the guise of controlling the BGF.
4

That i, until the ruling n BrothaDuguma's case In Re Crawford, fled June 4, 2012, and certified
for publication June 13. I a brillant piece of judicial easoning, a panel of justices in 2 3-0
decision finally reaffirmed a prisoner's First Amendment right to free speech and expression,
stating: *Freedom of speech i frst among the rights which form the foundation of our free.
society. The First Amendment embodies our choice as a nation that, when it comes to such
speech, the guiding principle i freedom — the unfettered interchange of ideas - not whatever
the State may view as far’ (Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (2011) 131 5.Ct. 2806).
“The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of
ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people . Alldeas.
having even the siightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial deas,
even ideas hateful to the prevalling climate of opinion — have the ful protection of the
uaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important
interests.’(Roth v. United States (1957) 354 US. 476, 484."

“Freedom of speech s first among the rights which form the foundation of our free socety.”

The programs embodied in the New Afrikan Collective Think Tank, New Afrikan Institute of
Criminology 101, the George Jackson University and the New Afrikan ideology itself are
inclusive programs emphasizing a solution-based approach to carmage in the poverty striken
siums from where many of us come. The CDCR Prison Intelligence Units (PIU) have sought to
suppress these initiatives simply because they do not ik the message. They have marched
nto court after court with one standard line: New Afrikan means BGF and these intiatives are
promoting the BGF

“As recently noted by Chief Justice Roberts,” the ruling in I re Crawford continues, [t]he First
‘Amendment reflects *a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public
issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” [Gitation. That is because “speech
concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it s the essence of sel-government.”
[Citation. Accordingly, “speech on public ssues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of
First Amendment values, and i entitled to special protection.” (Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562
US.__[1315.Ct. 1207, 1215)."

The programs embodied in the New Afrikan Collective Think Tank, New Afrkan Institute of
Criminology 101, the George Jackson University and the New Afikan ideology itsel are
inclusive programs emphasizing solution-based approach to carage in the poverty strken
stums rom where many of us come. The COCR Prison Intellgence Unit have marched into
Courtafter court with one standard line: New Afrkan means BGF and these nitativs are
promoting the BGF.

s

Inre Crawford s 3 very important ruling because the justices said these protections apply to
prisoners as well. Now contrast ths with the ruling in Ells v. Cambra, 2010 U .Dist.Ct. Lexis
110956, WL 4137150 (EDist.Cal, Oct. 19, 2010). There the court permitted this writer to be.
‘punished based on his speech that offended prison offcials. They were permitted to use the
‘gang validation procedures to shield their retaliatory conduct, essentially justifying the
‘punishment for legitimate First Amendment actvity, even though the case did not challenge a
gang validation.

The court there said this writer did not have a right to keep his own thoughts, and that this
writer was properly held liable “for writing with admiration about a prison gang founder,
George Jackson;” and that any notion of PIU being motivated by their hatred of George Jackson
was alln this writer’s head.

It judges like these who engage in falacious reasoning and pervert the law, who bend over
backwards to make excuses for prison offcials who routinely violate the First Amendment. It is
judges like these who we must hold accountable by exposing thei falacious rulings and
disrespect for constitutional principles to the public, 50 the people can see the arbitrary nature
of theirsystem of justice and perhaps get a glimpse at what makes 5o many of us believe that
the Constitution should have been written on toilet paper.

Because up untilthe ruling in In Re Crawford, 206 Cal.App.4th 1259 (2012) justice truly had
been biind, refusing to recognize the First Amendment rights of pisoners despite Pell and the
Martinez Supreme Court rulings. See In re Furnace (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 645, 659.

ere a hostle Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals permitted Mr. Furnace to be validated
because of his listening to audio tapes of George Jackson, which he had been permitted to i’

purchase from his prison cell, approved by prison staff.

The hard and courageous work of jailhouse lawyers ike Mutope, Sondai and Sitawa will enable
the promise of “Equal justice under the law,” etched into the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court,
to break through prison walks.

While the court appointed counsel to represent M. Funace, counsel neglected to employ an
expert witness to debunk the fallacious opinion of the PIU and to put forth that the political
thought of George Jackson does not promote criminal gang activity.

The PIU have put forth a narrative that George Jackson's books are “must read” for members
of the BGF and members of the BGF often quote from George's books. Ths s exactly why
prisoners need our professors,intellectuals and historians to step up to stop this assault on
legitimate historical content

People from all walks of life who embark upon a study of history come across many books that
are characterized as “must read.” Does this alone qualify as gang activity? In Hawkins v. Russell
(E:DistCal. 2011, 2011 WL 1299939), the PIU admitted that there were many legitimate
reasons why a prisoner would want to read George Jackson's books

Unfortunately for Mr. Furnace, he suffered the same fate as this writr, being inthe hosil
Fifth Appellate District where the Constitution is as §ood as a two-ply piece of toilet paper!

The three-judge panel ruled in Mutope’s case: “indeed, the measure of our resolve as a society.
to protect free expression must be our willngness to tolerate unpleasant speech by those
speaking from the margins of politcal opinion. As Justice Kennedy has pointed out, (tjhe First
Amendment s often inconvenient, but thatis beside the point. Inconvenience does not
absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech’ International So. for Krishna
Consciousness, Inc.v. Lee (1992) 505 .. 672, 701 (concurring opinion of Kennedy, 1.

“[T]he government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because socity finds the
idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson (1989) 491 U. 397, 414)"

Contrast that with Hawkins v. Russel (E.Dist Cal. 2011) 2011 WL 1299939, There the court
‘permitted the confiscation of George Jackson's book “Blood in My Eye,” again accepting any
excuse prison offcials could conjure up. Even when their excuses proved to be false, the court
simply gave them another bt at the apple to come up with a better excuse.

The three-judge panel ruled in Mutope’s case: “Indeed, the measure of our resolve as a
society to protect free expression must be our willingness to tolerate unpleasant speech by
those speaking from the margins of political opinion.

Any information prison officials find objectionable is automatically attributed to the BGF for
validation purposes, the Hawkins court ruled. t was alleged that the book “Blood in My Eye”

| and two other documents were BGF material. The court accepted this at face value. The court
asked few questions and didn't require an answer! And in a twisted opinion, summary.

J judgment was awarded to the state - another fallacious opinion, dooming Brotha Hawkin for
his possessing any political thought the state finds objectionable.

BrothaMutope i In e Crawford, 206 Cal.App.ath, 1259 (2012), has broken through the code of
slence that was permitting an entire class of New Afrikan Black prisoners to be punished
simply for possessing a thought about their/our struggles in this society, country and world and
for daring to speak about it. And the courts remained silent refusing to even entertain a First
Amendment argument, instead opting to accept the notion put forth by the Prison Intelligence
Unit that New Afrikan €quals BGF, thereby criminalizing an entire body of history under the.
guise of gang activiy.

‘George Jackson canno be removed from the fabric of the people’s struggles in this society any.
more than Malcolm X can or Medger Evers or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Harriett Tubman or
Sojourner Truth or Ida 8. Wells, Rosa Parks or Frederick Douglass, or the countless others
who've fought and struggled for a brighter future for generations to come, g

BrothaMutope in in e Crawford has broken through the code of silence that was permitting
an entire cass of New Afrikan Black prisoners to be punished simply for possessing a thought
about their/our strugglesin this society, country and world and for daring o speak about it.
And the courts remained silent refusing to even entertain First Amendment argument.

What CDCR and its rison Intelligence Unit are trying to do s make an end run around the First
Amendment by shielding its suppression actvity under the guise of gang actvty, jus as they
tried to do historicall, which gave rise to Procunier v. Martinez (1574) 416 U.S. 396, 413.

In Inre Crawford, COCR argued for an exception to the Martinez tes for validated gang
members. The court declined to make such an exception, holding: “Gang related ‘
correspondence i not within the exception to the First Amendment test for censorship of
outgoing inmate mail”

The fact that they even argued for such an exception shows their mindset, their intentions to
suppress that which they believe to be repugnant, offensive and that which they believe
prisoner ought not be thinking! Because we in their minds have no right to think or possess
ideas, concepts or vision beyond that which they believe we should possess.

Until I Re Crawford, these highly educated judges were sanctioning this nonsense with
twisted, perverted rulings permitting a newspaper article or magazine layout or book to be.
used against a prisoner for validation purposes. They issued twisted rulingslike those in Els v.
Cambra or Hawkins v. Russell and In Re Furnace, where this writer was told he has no right to
his thoughts and the First Amendment only protects a prisoner'srigh to fle a 602.

These kinds of fallcious rulings ough to be publicized 5o as to show the skilfl manipulation
of the law by those sworn to uphold i. In Re Crawford reestablishes that First Amendment
protections apply to prisoners and that we too enjoy a measure of free speech and expression
and that we ought not be punished with fabricated notions of gang activiy for merely a
thought!

However, f we are to continue to meet with success, we need our professors, historians and
Intellectuals to step up and provide declarations that we can use in our ltgation, defending
our fght (o read, write and study all aspects of a people’s history, ke Professor James T.
Campbell did in In Re Crawford. This is the only way a prisoner can challenge the opinion of a
prison official
Until now, the Prison Intelligence Unit has been falsely claiming that the term New Afrivan and
the ideology New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalism (NARN) was the creation of the BGF and
any prisoner or person who uses the term is showing his allegiance to the BGF. This standard
line has been thei posiion in every validation involving the usage of these terms. @

In Re Crawford reestablishes that First Amendment protections apply to prisoners and that
we too enjoy a measure of free speech and expression and that we ought not be punished
with fabricated notions of gang activity for merely a thought!

Well, Professor Campbell provided expert testimony inIn re Crawford, showing that the terms
are ubiquitous in Black urban lfe and have no particular connections to prison gangs. “Oh what
2 tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

InMarrison v.IGI, at the evidentiary hearing in Del Norte Superior Court, the Prison In
Unit's correctional specialist Devin Hawks represented to the court that George Jackson
University was really 2 drop box for the BGF but couldn't produce a single pece of evidence to
prove this outrageous claim. That prompted the judge to say how angry he was; it had been

is was 2 drop box, he said, and we get here today and there’s no

These kinds of exaggerations are common and they're usually able to shield themselves usi
confidentialty. The PIU have given at least three different excuses to try and place George.
Jackson n the sphere of being 2 gang founder, and I'm sure other prisoners have received

other excuses. All are relevant and important

Their latest narrative, used in Hawkins v. Russell, is that George Jackson founded the BGF in
1966. This information comes from a document written in the 1990s by a SHU prisoner who
was preparing to debrief. He was permitted to pass around copies of these deceptive.
‘documents in the SHU. 1 personally spoke to some of the elders about these documents and
‘was told that the information in them was flawed and that the connections it attempted to
make simply do not jibe with recorded history. This s alll say about this for now.

Butit appears that the PIU has gotten so desperate to now try and put forth a flawed narrative.
that the court accepted without question in Hawkins, even after COCR adrmitted there that
(George's books did not pose a security threat to California prisons and that there were many.
legitimate reasons why a prisoner may want to read those book.

At a minimum, i a court is going to accept an infringement upon First Amendment freedoms it
ought to at east do what the court i In re Crawford did and appoint counsel who can secure.
expert testimony 5o that a court's decision can be well informed and not simly some rote.
process of exclusion because of whatever contempt a court might have for the prisoner.
Mutope's victory i In re Crawford, 206 Cal.App.dth, 1259 (2012),is significant. It reaffirms our
fight 10 speak, it gives value to our ideas and opinions and, more importantly, it breaks the
code of silence that had swept through the courts about prisoners and the First Amendment.
“If there i a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may
ot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itslf offensive or
disagreeable” (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414; I re Crawford, 206 Cal App.dth 1259
(2012) (“these protections apply to prisoners 35 well). 1o

Much work remains to be done, like stopping the bogus validations based on legitimate First
Amendment material. We know that many individuals ae falsely validated simly for reading
George's books or a newspaper artcle, for observing Black August or for simply trying to getin
touch with one’s cultural identity.

Mutope's ictory i In re Crawford reafirms our right to speak, it gives value to our ideas and
opinions and, moreimperandy i breaks th code of silence that had swept through the
courts about prisoners and the Frst Amendment.

These legitimate expressions should carry no penalty atall, You're not doing anything wrong,
and a lotof brothas who've been validated simply shouldn't be. Nor should folks be frightened
away from reading or studying any aspect ofhistory simply because the state doesn't ke its
content. And judges who issue fallacious opinions permitting prisoners to be punished for
reading a George Jackson book o researching your hstory should be exposed.

Literary content and cultural and historical materials are not the activities of a gang; they are
political and social activities that we have a right (o express, according to the nanimous
decision in In re Crawford,

The First Amendment campaign continues to forge ahead, although we still don't have a
fawyer. The campaign stll exists, and we anticipate even greater successes in the future.

Much work remains to be done, like stopping the bogus validations based on legitimate First
Amendment material. We know that many individuals ae falsely validated simply for
reading George's books or a newspaper articl, for observing Black August or for simply
trying to getin touch with one’s cultural identity.

We can't be intimidated into silence by unfounded accusations of gang activity. We believe the
First Amendment ought (o live up to what it says it s. We believe it is important to be able to
participate fully in the marketplace of ideas, because we agree that “the First Amendment
reflects 3 profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public isues should
be uninhibited, robust and wide-open (lustice Roberts [Roth v. United States) (1957) 354 US.
476,
Pelicon mersh% Pr1s0n Poihcal Prisonecs
s

e below New AGivon freedom
Ciantecs have spent Hhe losk T2n
(10Y To Thw iy Towo (@D yeovs 10 o0l

fov gy Connement. Thes ove WH“]
oF oo SUPRNT. send oov Brothas
Some LoVt % Laights

muTope DUgNTa sitowa viontsmby Jemaa
JJores Crag3vond S/n RN PEW Bervy
5111 /Dosq4k DIT/C S bT

.85 P8y, P-0.80X-T500 P BHOP-5H00, ¢.0.804 1500
veacent Cit,CA. Q32 Lrescent Ciky LA 95532

. sondal Kamdibe
ABdul olu(ilbo\a shako I Rondal E11is

N Saee s Hovvey D225 ¢ LBTE
D\ 114 CHB8RA PB5P-5HY, 0.0, BOK- 1500
PBE7-sHY, 0.0.BOX- 1500 Cresceat-Ciiy, CA. 95532

Creseent Gty cA. 95532

ABAST, Ganda ponidy Yero
&l Clyde Jackson Y James wilhomzen
02107, C 53659 D

P.B5P-SHY P-0.20%-T500 ?2&‘0»1\/43,3;{;52 ~1500

ercaceant G ,CAQ553 2 Cv e scent by, CA. 45532

smuTawally KamBon K'iJena Toskin Astari

Sl Mictinel Coopev uscod G N\fl\’cysflflo\'\'\ecm
073123 #5407
D11 Al PRsp-SHY, PO.RDE-TS00

PB67-5Hv; P.0. B0X- 1500
CYeoeenTOTY, CA. 95532 Crestonriy, CALa5532
Elis v. Brandon, et al., C-10-2952-THE (PR), the case reported in our lastFirst Amendment
campaign update, was settled in March 2012 for far less than what it was worth. But among.
other things, the major influence in my decision t0 settle the case was my inabilty to secure an
expert witness declaration, which is the only way | felt we could be successful in summary
judgment, so it cannot be stressed enough about our ntellectual, professors and historians
being available to give their expert opinion on historical matters.

Literary content and cultural and historical materials are not the activities of a gang; they are
political and soclal activities that we have 3 right to express, according to the unanimous
decision in In re Crawford.

Many thanks to Professor James T. Campbellfor providing his learned, expert opinion and
historical analysis a it relates to Afrikan-Amerikan history that the PIU had been successfully
criminalizing. And a clenched fist salute to BrothaMutopeDuguma for his fine work in breaking
the code of silence. Finall, we'd be remiss if we didn't thank his legal team for ts excellent
work

We've cracked one layer of a thick wall Now allprisoners should take advantage of this .
briliant ruling and reassert your rights to study your heritage, Black, White or Brown.

@ SOth Chicago ABC
Py Zine Distro
P.0.Box 721

Homewood, IL 60430

FooT Nwre;b C | .

Aead The Collowmag coses:
Mavcus Hornoon v INbTWuaplp! (;m@.»xnvcohgabrg
NO. 07- 5824 (6%) OKo: TasHvi ASKart
TAMES ovvey V- R DIOWN(EGT) NOTID-489] (RS |
GKa Adul SHAKuUR |