I had noticed  in my reading of the proposed rule changes that the California Department of Corrections was repealing the entire Article concerning visiting, which is an indication they are up to no good.If you are going to battle with the CDC, you need to also be aware that Title 15, of the California Code of Regulations, is only one of their rulebooks.Most of the others are not available, but the most important one is:the Department Operations Manual (“D.O.M.”).That became available beginning some time in 2000 through the State Printing Office for about $16.When that became available, inmates began buying it and throwing some of their own rules back at them.

In 1991, Charlie Tooma, and inmate at Jamestown sued the CDC over use of the D.O.M.  (Tuolumne County Superior Court Case No. 32735).He ended up in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 015383, on aWrit of Mandate.Tooma v. Rowland.Unpublished of course?the state lost, so they covered it up.The issue was that the D.O.M. was unenforceable because the CDC had not complied with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), Gov. Code §11340, et. seq.Now, the Regulatory and Management Branch of the CDC, also must provide a copy of the APA approved D.O.M. sections if you request.There are many more visit and mail procedures and rules contained in the D.O.M..It is about the size of the Redding phone book.

The rank and file CDC Neanderthals just hated it when the D.O.M. became available to the public. Somewhere in the APA is the Gov. Code section that makes state agencies provide copies of proposed administrative rule changes to anyone who so requests.

Now, here comes my opinion of the “rights v. privilege” issue.People lose sight of the fact that there are two kinds of rights:Constitutional and Statutory.Often, the Constitution guarantees only basic rights, while by statute the government creates many more rights.Penal Code §2600 and 2601 are such statutes.This was known as “The Prisoners’ Bill of Rights,” and was the basis for everything the prisoners had beyond the minimal constitutional guarantees.That is until the “tough on crime” “do gooders” pressured the legislature with the pushing of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) back in 1997, and gutted the law.Many many years ago, the radical group known as “The Weathermen” bombed the hell out of CDC headquarters and three other CDC offices over prisoner abuses.The State responded with §2600 & 2601.In 1997 they forgot history, and the cycle of violence is beginning again.

Even though §2601 now only states visiting is a “privilege,” it still has some constitutional protections.First Amendment right to association, and then your Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights become implicated when other rights are denied.See Kentucky Dept. of Corr. V. Thompson, (1989) 490 USA 454, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed. 2d 506.

Prior to the gutting of §2601, the controlling prisoners rights case for challenging prison rules was In re Arias, (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 230 Cal.Rptr. 505.Most of it also no longer applies after the gutting.See also In re French, 164 Cal.Rptr. 800, 106 Cal.App. 3d 74 (1980), and DeLancie v. Superior Ct, (1982) 31 Cal.3d 864, 183 Cal.Rptr. 866. These cases will educate you as to why the CDC and CCPOA have spent the last several years tearing down all the prisoner rights gains of the 70’s and 80’s.

Moving on: Mail!You said you relied on Johnson V. Avery.  A very important case for the present problem of the Shasta County Jail not recognizing the confidential mail rights between inmates and legal organizations is the on point case: Crawford-El v. Britton, (1998) 96-827, U.S. Supreme Court Syllabus, claim by prisoner alleging that misdelivery of box of legal papers denied right of access to courts.Claim stated because prisoner alleged that prison officials ignored multiple requests to return legal materials needed for pending case. Here are some additional mail cases: Simmons v. Dickhaut, (1^st Cir. 1986) 804 F.2d 182, 184.Confiscated legal materials.Morello v. James, (2^nd Cir. 1987) 810 F.2d 344, 347; Carter v. Hutto, (4^th Cir. 1986) 781 F.2d 1028, 1031-32.These are all access to court cases.There are lots more.

In another letter I wrote about the jail staff's confusion between "confidential correspondence" and "legal mail."  A very important on point case:King v. Borg, Eastern District of California, Case no. CIV 5-87-0519 LKK PAN P (1993) (unpublished) of course it’s unpublished, they lost again.This case gives confidential legal mail status to legal organizations such as the ACLU.My guess is UNION would qualify also.

Here are more:Thornburg v. Abbott, 490 US 401, 109 S.Ct 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 US 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed. 2d 24 (1978); People v. Poe, (1983) 193 Cal.Rptr. 479, 145 Cal.App. 3d 574 (legal mail); Allen v. Coughlin, (2^nd Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 77, 80-81, 1^st. Am. Claim stated when prison officials removed newspaper clippings from prisoners incoming mail because clippings generally pose no greater threat to security than other forms of correspondence.Abu-Jamal v. Price, (3^rd Cir. 1998) 154 F.3d 128, 135, 1^st Am. Claim stated because prison’s enforcement of business or profession rule with respect to inmate’s published writings and broad case interviews too broad to be justified by articulated concerns.

Muhammad v. Pitcher, (6^th Cir. 1994) 35 F.3d 1081, 1085, 1^st. Am. Violated by prison policy of opening mail from State Attorney General’s Office outside prisoner’s presence.Burden on prison to open mail in inmate’s presence, as was already done with other legal mail, is minimal.Murphy v. Mo. Dept. of Corr. (8^th Cir. 1987) 814 F.2d 1252, 1257, 1^st. Am. Violated by prohibiting mail from Aryan Nation; officials can only withhold literature specifically advocating violence or so racially inflammatory that likely to cause violence.Murphy v. Shaw, (9^th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1121, 1125, Cert. Granted, 121 S.Ct. 27 (2000), 1^st Am. Claim implicated when inmate law clerk punished for sending letter containing legal advice to fellow inmate.We need to find out what the Supreme Court did with that one, or if it has ever been decided.

Crofton v. Roe, (9^th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957, 960, First Am. violated by regulation prohibiting inmates from receiving books as gifts because no reasonable relations to valid penological objectives demonstrated.

Procunier v. Martinez, now applies to only outgoing mail.Thornburg v. Abbott,(1989) 490 US 401, at 411 limits Martinez to outgoing correspondence. Thornburg now controls incoming prison mail. See also Turner v. Safley, (1986) 482 US 78, which is where this damn term “legitimate penological interests” got rolling, and it has been down-hill for prisoners’ rights ever since.

The problem has been the Black Robed conservatives on the Supreme Court.On any prisoner right issue or defendant right issue there is a 5 to 4 right wing majority against.The three ultra right wingers are Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.They are usually joined by Kennedy and O’Conner, who are closer to the center but still conservatives.The Liberal minority is always Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.Last year 21 of the 74 cases had that split.All of the criminal/defendant rights cases had that split.  The newspapers have reported that Bush has quietly requested the conservative justices to hold off on retirement plans until after the November elections, where the Republicans hope to re-capture control of the Senate, and then control nominations to the court.This split has been undoing all of the gains made during the civil rights era.

Three of the Old Geezers are getting really old: Rehnquist, who has wanted to retire for some time, but didn’t want to do so during Clinton’s term which would have allowed a liberal nomination.Now he is holding back because the Republicans lost control of the Senate, so Bush could never get a ultra conservative confirmed.Same with O’Connor.Stevens, a Ford appointee who turned liberal, is older than dirt.Losing him during a Republican presidency will not be good.It has been over 100 years since the Court has gone this long without a change.

Ever since those five Black Robed Conservatives began undermining their precedent with “legitimate penological interests,” the like-minded California right-wingers have been working towards those same goals.Their first success came when they managed to oust the Rose Bird California Supreme Court.Next, the same group pushed for and got the Three Strikes Law.After that came adding “legitimate penological interest” language to Penal Code §2600, which gutted the Prisoners’ Bill of Rights.They are not through yet.They have been, by design, going slow with the Title 15 changes to keep the prisoners from rioting, which is what would happen if they did it all at once.About once a year they take something: Family visits for lifers and sex offenders, then the exercise weights, then long hair and beards, hobby shops, college education programs, now they are gutting the regular visiting.If you want to get an idea of what it was like before they gutted §2600-2601, read In re Arias, which sets for the previous review standards of CDC rules when challenged.None of that exists now under the new §2600-2601.

I learned that the jail does not like outside intervention in their affairs.The rank and file do not want the Lt. or Capt. finding out when they screw-up.Then the brass does not want problems getting out of the jail.Jail staff depends on the ignorance of the inmates when the jail feeds them denials.A case in point:When I first arrived here, I requested some photocopies to send some documents to the Federal Court in Sacramento.No only did they refuse, they put their dumb answers on paper.Both the Sgt. And Capt. Said, “we don’t provide photo copies, the court will need to send a runner.”I sent the Captain’s statement along with my statement that the jail was preventing me from following the Rules of Court.You can probably guess what a Federal Judge thought about some punk cop telling him he must send a runner.

Of course, nothing happens very fast.I had almost forgotten, then one day I get a copy of an Order to Show Cause from the U.S. District Court ordering the Sheriff to develop a plan for inmates to get legal copies, or the court would develop one for him.Well, the poop ran down hill rapidly.They were really sucked-up.  The Sheriff had to hire an Attorney in San Francisco to answer the Order.The Lt. at the time, who had been on vacation during the stupid answer period, was assigned to solve the problem.  The Jail has supposedly  developed a legal copy procedure for the inmates.  Jim Pope's Attorney assured the Federal court this would be included in the next edition of the Inmate Handbook, and that Jail Staff would receive training in the procedure.

All of the jail/prison litigation has been based on Constitutional rather than statutory rights.You might want to explore the postal laws to see if jails/prisons are in any way exempted.If they are not, then 18 USC §1702 may be the way to go.Title 18 U.S.C. is a criminal statute, so an individual has no enforcement powers.You would need to complain to the Postal Inspector through your local Postmaster.Also, there may be other mail statutes in that general area of Title 18.

I was not pleased to see that those Black Robed Snots granted certiorari. On the two 9^th Circuit Three-Strikes cases.They don’t agree to hear cases unless they intend to tamper with the decisions.Those were good decisions for inmates; it is not good to see those decisions tempered with.Can you go to the Supreme Court website and find out which Justices voted what way when they accepted that case.This might give us a clue as to what they are up to.

There is some not good precedent.Back in the 60’s, there was a case in either North or South Carolina where a guy got life for a $37 (about) bad check.The Supreme Court said that wasn’t cruel & unusual punishment.I have no idea the name of that case, I just remember reading it in the past.Those Black-robed Snots have done too many things that should have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

There is another mail issue that has always irritated me:The Mail Stamp.The big red stamp on the front of the envelope that says “Shasta County Jail Inmate Mail.”The Federal courts have upheld that for convicted prisoners, but I don’t know about pre-trial detainees.Nachtigall v. Bd. Of Charities and Corrections, (S.S.D. 1984) 590 F.Supp. 1223; Theriault v. Magnusson, (D.Me. 1988) 698 F.Supp. 369.I don’t know if there are any more recent cases, or if the issue ever reached the Federal appellate courts.The problem with the mail stamp is it places a chilling effect on the inmates correspondent.A large number of potential correspondents, including the inmates families, do not want the stigma of people knowing they are corresponding with prisoners.When California first implemented the “mail stamp,” a large number of prisoners were dropped by their correspondents.Correspondence with friends and family is very important for rehabilitation.Something the CCPOA, the same group pushing the new visiting restrictions, does not want.  The guards need recidivism not rehabilitation to ensure their job security.  Their union is not a friend of the taxpayers.

See what happens when you let me anywhere near a soapbox!

                                                                      Tom Watson, Shasta County Jail