Crimes of the State: AZ Prisons Visitor Fee 2011.

Exiled.

Maricopa County Jail, Phoenix
April 5, 2011

Thanks to Donna Hamm at Middle Ground Prison Reform for taking on this fight...

-------------from the New York Times---------------

Inmate Visits Now Carry Added Cost in Arizona

By ERICA GOODE

Published: September 4, 2011

For the Arizona Department of Corrections, crime has finally started to pay.

New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, has angered prisoner advocacy groups and family members of inmates, who in many cases already shoulder the expense of traveling long distances to the remote areas where many prisons are located.

David C. Fathi, director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the fee “mind-boggling” and said that while it was ostensibly intended to help the state — the money will be used to repair and maintain the prisons — it could ultimately have a negative effect on public safety.

“We know that one of the best things you can do if you want people to go straight and lead a law-abiding life when they get out of prison is to continue family contact while they’re in prison,” he said. “Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

One woman, whose brother is a prisoner at the Eyman complex in Florence, said that most of her family lives out of state, so the fee is an additional burden on top of the travel costs.

“What will happen is that people will just stop visiting,” said the woman, adding that most prisoners “live for” visits from relatives. Because some friends of the family still do not know of her brother’s incarceration, she asked to be identified only by her first name, Shauna. She was one of several dozen family members of inmates who complained to Middle Ground Prison Reform, a group based in Tempe, about the fee.

In a lawsuit filed last month against the Corrections Department, Middle Ground said the fee was simply a pretext for raising money “for general public purposes” and as such was unconstitutional because it amounted to a special tax on a single group.

Middle Ground has also filed suit over another provision of the law, which imposes a 1 percent charge on deposits made to a prisoner’s spending account.

Donna Leone Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground, said she thought that state legislators created the background check fee “out of sheer financial desperation” at a time when the state faces huge budget shortfalls.

“This was a scheme — in my mind, a harebrained scheme — to try to come up with the money,” she said.

Wendy Baldo, chief of staff for the Arizona Senate, confirmed that the fees were intended to help make up the $1.6 billion deficit the state faced at the beginning of the year.

“We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections,” Ms. Baldo said. She added that the department “needed about $150 million in building renewal and maintenance and prior to this year, it just wasn’t getting done and it wasn’t a safe environment for the people who were in prison and certainly for the people who worked there.”

Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.

Barrett Marson, a spokesman for the Corrections Department, said in an e-mail that it was the department’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.

Although there have been some calls and letters from potential visitors inquiring about the fee and how to pay it, no complaints had been reported from inmates, Mr. Marson said. The department has not determined whether the number of visitors to the prisons has changed since the charge went into effect, he added.

“Maintenance funds for our buildings are scarce in this difficult economic time,” he said. “A $25 visitation fee helps to ensure our prisons remain safe environments for staff, inmates and visitors.”

Ms. Hamm, the Middle Ground director who is also a retired lower court judge and married to a former inmate, said that an earlier proposal presented to a legislative committee would have imposed the background check fee on everyone who visited inmates, including babies and children. But in the end, the Legislature limited the fees to people over 18.

The law also allows the Corrections Department to waive all or part of the background check fee in certain circumstances — for example, when an applicant just wants permission to telephone an inmate.

Ms. Hamm said that research by her organization could not find any other example of a state prison system imposing a fee on visitors.

The Arizona Corrections Department, Ms. Hamm said, has run perfunctory checks on visitors for years. In its application form, the department requires visitors to provide their name, date of birth and a driver’s license or other photo identification number. Providing a Social Security number on the application is optional, and no fingerprints are required.

Another state agency, the Department of Public Safety, conducts free background checks for people who want to review their own records and who provide fingerprints, said Carrick Cook, a spokesman.

The Public Safety Department charges $20 for criminal background checks of people who are hired as volunteers for state agencies, and $24 for checks on paid state workers, both of which involve fingerprinting. A fingerprint clearance card, required for child care and foster care workers in Arizona, costs $65 for volunteers and $69 for paid employees.

Shauna, whose brother is at the Eyman complex, said she learned about the fee after she filed applications for her brother’s son, a Mormon missionary in Kentucky who wanted to visit his father, along with a friend and two other relatives.

She was told that the best way to pay the fee was electronically, through Western Union, but was unable to get the system to work, she said.

She was then advised to send a money order. Despite confirmation by United Parcel Service that the package had been delivered, the Corrections Department told her that the $100 payment — four $25 money orders for four visitors — had not been received, she said.

Another $100 payment was sent, and on Friday — months after she began the application process — she finally got confirmation of the payment from the department.

“I have now spent $200 of my own money to get family in,” she said, adding that it could take up to 60 days for the department to approve the applications.

Middle Ground challenges new ADC "fees".

The following press release just arrived in my box, and speaks for itself. Middle Ground Prison Reform has a considerable amount of information on their website on ADC and other prisoner-related issues, so check them out if you haven't already. I'm just a blogger who makes a lot of noise; the Hamms have the legal resources and knowledge to help people sue the ADC on matters like this that I don't.

------------------------------------

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: DONNA LEONE HAMM/MIDDLE GROUND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

(602) 339-0762 (Donna)

email: middlegroundprisonreform@msn.com

On Monday, July 18th, with Middle Ground Prison Reform's assistance, David Arner, a prisoner in the Arizona Department of Corrections/Eyman/Meadows Unit, filed a Pro Se Complaint for Special Action and Declaratory Judgment against Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, challenging a new law that will go into effect on July 20, 2011.

The law, which was part of SB 1621, authorizes the DOC to deduct a fee from each deposit made into a state prisoner's bank account (known as a "spendable" account), but requires that 100% of the deductions be placed into a newly-established Building Renewal Fund for the Department of Corrections. None of the "fee" is used at all to defray the cost of managing inmate bank accounts. Hence, under existing case law, it is a tax, not a fee, and constitutes an unconstitutional "special law."

A copy of the Complaint is attached in Pdf. format to this email AND if you have trouble with the attachment, it is also posted on the website for Middle Ground at: middlegroundprisonreform.org

Arizona prisoners do not earn interest, dividends or any monies at all on any monies on deposit in their spendable accounts (or in any other accounts), no matter how long the money is on deposit nor how much money is in the account. Instead, interest earned on these monies is diverted to the DOC's "special services fund." This fund was originally established to provide for purchases that related to the "welfare and benefit of inmates." However, in recent years, the legislatutre has permitted that fund to be used to provide incentive salary increases to prison guards, and for other uses that are wholly unrelated to the welfare and benefit of inmates.

"Now, not only does the state continue its long-term practice of declining to pay interest on prisoners' monies on deposit, but it also wants to tax prisoners' funds by charging a so-called banking deposit fee. None of the monies from the tax are used to defray the cost of actually maintaining the prisoners' spendable accounts, however. Instead, 100% of the illegal tax will be diverted to a Building Renewal Fund for exclusive use by the DOC," said Donna Leone Hamm, Director of Middle Ground Prison Reform.

"Ironically, legislators don't tax themselves, lobbyists or their employees or visitors for leaky roofs or clogged plumbing at the state capitol, but they are perfectly willing to tax prisoners -- and by default their families who make deposits to prisoner's accounts -- for such routine maintenance obligations," said Hamm.

"This so-called "fee", which is actually a tax, is nothing but a pretext to raise money for the building renewal fund of the ADOC. It's an illegal tax -- pure and simple -- imposed on a select group of people -- for a purpose that is legally the responsibility of all taxpayers who benefit from the public safety provided by the prison system," added Hamm.

SB 1621 also authorized the DOC to charge a background check fee for potential visitors who apply for visitation to a prisoner on or after July 20, 2011, and Middle Ground will soon be challenging that fee for the same reasons as above. The fee, set by the ADOC, is $25 for each applicant for visitation over the age of 18. It does not apply to lawyers or their agents. Per the statute, none of the monies collected by the DOC for the "fee" are used to defray the cost of processing background checks. Instead, 100% of the fee is required to be placed in the DOC Building Renewal Fund for building maintenance and renewal projects. This, too, is an illegal special tax. Visitors are not the only persons who use prison buildings. They are used by law enforcement personnel performing interviews of prisoners, lawyers and their agents, prison guards and other prison staff, victim's groups who visit the prison for reconcilation activities, volunteers, and others. All taxpayers have an obligation to pay for general maintenance and renewal of state agency infrastructure.

The separate lawsuit challenging the visitor background check fee will be filed shortly after July 20, 2011, when the fee goes into effect. Donna Leone Hamm and James J. Hamm, principals in Middle Ground, will be the named Plaintiffs in that litigation, representing themselves.

Donna Leone (Hamm)

Criminal Justice Consultant
Executive Director - Middle Ground Prison Reform
See: www.middlegroundprisonreform.org

MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER CHAMPION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983

Middle Ground re: ADC "visitor application fee"

This is a thoughtful response to a concern many folks have been expressing about the new fees being imposed by the state, balancing their budget on the backs of prisoners and their families already being bled dry by profiteers. Thanks to Donna Hamm for putting this out there...check out her website at Middle Ground Prison Reform for more info on dealing with the state prisons.

--------------------

From: DONNA LEONE HAMM
Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Subject: FW: RE-WRITE needed: DO 911/Relevant portions of of SB 1621



Middle Grounders:

The information below is self-explanatory. No need to respond to this email; it is sent to you for information purposes only. Our preliminary legal research indicates that the new fee for visitor background checks (which DOC has now dubbed as a "visitor application fee" for what we believe are very specious reasons) is an unconstitutional "special tax." We are in the early stages of preparing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Charles Ryan, DOC Director. We hope to have the lawsuit prepared, written and filed prior to the effective date of the new fees, July 20, 2011. However, there is no way that the lawsuit will be resolved by that time. The "relief" we will be seeking is (1) to have the court declare that the statute is unconstitutional and imposes a "special tax" on prison visitors; and, (2) that all fees thus far collected are to be refunded. The court will NOT grant us a preliminary injunction (prior to implementation of the policy/fee) because the imposition of the fee does not represent "irreparable harm," which is the standard of law that must be met.

Please carefully read the information below. As you can see, we have demanded that the DOC re-write DO 911, effective 7/20/11 because they aren't even following the law that is stated in the new statute. By naming the fee a "visitation application fee" instead of what the law calls it -- a BACKGROUND CHECK FEE -- we believe that the DOC is trying to avoid having to perform actual background checks on all visitors because it will overwhelm their resources. Keep in mind that NONE of the fee monies collected are allowed to be used by the DOC to off-set the actual costs (whatever they are) for background checks. Instead, 100% of the monies collected MUST go to the Building Renewal Fund (to repair roofs, fire safety systems, locks, etc.) Note: ALL taxpayers benefit from the alleged safety that is created for the state by locking up prisoners; prisoner families should not have to pay the costs of building maintenance of prison facilities on their own. That's what this law attempts to do.

Right now, we don't need Plaintiffs for the lawsuit, but if we do need volunteers, we will put out the word and obtain names.

Thanks for understanding that this email is being distributed to more than 2,000 people and we can't possibly respond to individual questions from each one of you. Feel free to pass this information along to at least ten (10) people. If they want to be included on our Middle Ground E-mail alert list, ask them to send us an email with the subject line marked: ADD To Email Alert List.


Donna Leone (Hamm)
Criminal Justice Consultant
Executive Director - Middle Ground Prison Reform
See: www.middlegroundprisonreform.org
MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER CHAMPION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983

________________________________

From: middlegroundprisonreform@msn.com
To: cryan@azcorrections.gov; kklausner@azcorrections.gov
Subject: RE-WRITE needed: DO 911/Relevant portions of of SB 1621
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:54:39 -0700

Mr. Ryan,

As we discussed, I am writing to provide you with concerns and objections to the implementation of SB 1621, specifically that part which provides for a fee for background checks for visitors, but which will actually be used (100%) to fund an Building Renewal Fund wholly operated by the DOC. I noted on the DOC website that you have already issued revised DO 911, effective 7/20/11, but for various reasons -- particularly because it is illegally written from the start -- it will have to be revised.

ARS 41-1604.3 states, ESTABLISH BY RULE A ONE-TIME FEE FOR CONDUCTING BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ANY PERSON WHO ENTERS A DEPARTMENT FACILITY TO VISIT A PRISONER. A FEE SHALL NOT BE CHARGED FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. THE DIRECTOR MAY ADOPT RULES THAT WAIVE ALL OR PART OF THE FEE. THE DIRECTOR SHALL DEPOSIT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 35-146 and 35-147, ANY MONIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BUILDING REVEWAL FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-797.

Please note the underlined portions of the above paragraph. The recently revised Visitation policy, effective July 20, 2011, and known as DO 911, states at 1.2, Visitation Application Fee, A one'time, non-refundable, $25.00 application fee must be paid at the time the application is submitted for all adult visitors. . . . All fees collected shall be applied to the Building Renewal Fund.

Mr. Ryan, there is no such thing in Arizona law which authorizes a "Visitation Application Fee." As noted above, the fee is imposed for "conducting background checks." This is an important distinction and must be rectified.

Although I, myself, am a potential visitor to the prison facilities throughout the state, I decied to poll our Middle Ground email "alert" list (which consists of about 2,000 valid addresses) to see what thoughts and concerns others have about this background check fee. In no order of importance and in no order of frequency of an item being mentioned, those concerns -- along with those specifically identified by Middle Ground -- are listed below.

As I previously mentioned to you, this list of concerns -- even if taken into account by the Department in re-writing the policy which will govern this fee -- in no way constitutes an endorsement or support of the fee. We are adamantly opposed to any fee imposed on potential visitors and believe it to be an unconstitutional special tax.

1. The amount of the fee is of grave concern. DPS charges only $5 for a background check for any person who properly identifies him/herself. The $25 fee as identified in DO 911 is exhorbitant.

2. Visitors have indicated they will expect to be provided a written or digital receipt for paying the fee or fees. There is no indication of providing this reasonable information to anyone who pays money to the Department contained within DO 911. This is critical since any subsequent re-incarceration of a released inmate is not supposed to result in another fee for his previously-paid visitors. The Department may lose a computer record which confirms receipt of the previous payment. A written receipt to the person who pays the fee is expected and required.

4. Since visitors are required to pay for a background check (and not, as the Department has disingenuously renamed it, a "Visitor application fee") , they will expect to receive a copy of the results of the background check. The background checks are confidential, but not to the party on whom the check is being performed (see DPS rules and statutory authorities). This document will have to be mailed by the Department to an address provided by the applicant. Persons who pay for a product or "service" provided by the State are entitled to receive the product they paid for. The statute authorizes a fee for a background check only. There is no statutory fee authorized for a "visitor application."

5. On the date the fee provision goes into effect, will all persons currently approved as visitors be denied visitation until they pay the fee and have a new background check performed? There are already extraordinary delays in clearing visitors through background checks (although the process itself only takes a few minutes, according to DPS). Will all visitors to the Arizona DOC have to have their visitation suspended until a new check is finalized?

6. Will additional staff be hired to timely process all the new and/or updated background checks that will need to be performed?

7. If a person visits more than one inmate (multiple family members incarcerated), is there still a one-time background check fee?

8. How was the $25 fee arrived at by DOC? DPS charges only $5 for a background check fee.

9. Why are there no exemptions (except for lawyers and their agents) for the background check fee? What about truly indigent persons?

10. Once a previous visitor turns age 18, will they have to pay the background check fee upon turning 18 even if they are already visiting as a child?

11. What reports does the Department intend to prepare and distribute which reflects how the collected monies are being spent (on building renewal)?

12. If someone lives in an out-of-state location and has no intention (or means) of visiting, will they still have to pay the fee to become a telephone contact for the prisoner? (The statute says only visitors over the age of 18 will pay the background check fee).

13. How long must a potential visitor wait to be advised whether the application has been approved or not? Will approvals be significantly delayed as a result of all the new background checks that must be performed to comply with this statute?

14. The DOC receipt sent to the applicant must include assurances that the privacy of the applicant is strictly protected and that the information is not sold to any other agency, company or used for any other purpose that a background check for visitation approval.

Please advise what you intend to do to address the above reasonable concerns, as well as to revise DO 911 to correctly identify the reason for the fee (background check).

Donna Leone (Hamm)
Criminal Justice Consultant
Executive Director - Middle Ground Prison Reform
See: www.middlegroundprisonreform.org

MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER CHAMPION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983

State of AZ robbing and killing us to pay Paul.

Hey folks: there's some bad stuff going down at the legislature and in executive offices at the Capitol now that they're back at work - check out Middle Ground Prison Reform's take on it and call to action. If Donna Hamm thinks it's worth contacting legislators about these proposals (which include new fees for families and prisoners), it's worth it.

Also on the budget issues: I was just at the legislature the other day demonstrating about the Governor's proposal to cut some 280,000 more people off of AHCCCS. (violating a voter-initiative that extended the coverage in the first place). I think she called them into special session for that purpose just to keep the resistance off guard - I was the only one down there with any sign of protest (so I spread it around). I was pretty outraged that she'd call them all together to save money by killing more of the poor in this state, and wouldn't lift a finger to save those transplant patients that they collectively condemned to die.

So, what's more important to Arizonans: corporate welfare or human welfare; money or life? I know where my own priorities are, and my taxes aren't following them to pay for health care, housing or education - they're being hijacked by this fascist state to further a racist, classist, misogynistic agenda and build more prisons. Call me crazy, but that kind of thing I can't help but protest...



























The latest AHCCCS patient-killer bill, by the way, passed through
both houses on party line votes (see link above).

I just don't get this place...

Resist Abuse and Conditions of Confinement: Solidarity with Georgia's Prisoners.

Where have I been the past few days? (Sleeping or hanging out at Conspire, I guess.) Hooray for the Georgia Green Party for posting the prisoners' Press Release!!! I'm re-posting it here because it's both historic and phenomenal.


Do we have any political parties with similar guts in AZ? Our prisoners are suffering, too.


Anyway, this is how it began, folks - the massive prisoner resistance to conditions of confinement in Georgia. I'll be posting updates soon (here's a quick one - the fight goes on!).


Arizona prison families and friends: keep in close touch with your loved ones and talk up what's going on at Prison Talk and all the blogs. I'm hearing that surveillance, strip searches, and over-all security has been dramatically stepped-up in recent days, and yards are being locked down for "no apparent reason"....well this is the reason. I bet it's happening all over the country - nothing freaks out jailers more than non-violent resistance and reasonable demands.


Those sixteen women at Perryville who protested being locked down in September all got cuffed up and put into detention as soon as we stopped paying attention, by the way, and the whole yard (Santa Cruz) was screwed for quite some time. Those women still are, really. I originally posted on the Santa Cruz women's protest here, but recently edited it out because I had given too much credit where it wasn't due (to the General Counsel at the ADC). I planned to revise it (and will soon) - I just didn't want my correspondents to get into even deeper trouble. There are still a couple of posts from that month about Perryville conditions (both before and after the protest). I even tried to get Oprah out there.


We need to keep a close eye on both the Georgia resistance and the Arizona Department of Corrections (and all the county jails) reactions - they're going to do whatever they have to in order to make every prisoner look mean and violent to justify their own brutality, if need be - don't believe the BS for a minute if things do get ugly. Call those numbers in Georgia, please, to tell them those prisoners better not get hurt - let them know they'll be held accountable for their crimes, too.


As for this place: if you're hearing real bad stuff from your loved ones locked up here in Arizona, don't just hit the chat rooms and leave it at that: put your complaints in writing to the ADC's General Counsel, Karyn Klausner, and copy it to your legislator, if you think you can trust them not to do something stupid. Follow up with their office, however it turns out; just make a point of addressing the ADC's general counsel directly with serious (urgent health/safety) concerns - and call her people if you don't get a response in a reasonable period of time.


Don't bother with the Governor's staff or the Office of Constituent Services at the ADC, by the way, unless you're talking about visitation hassles, mail being delayed, the cost of phone calls home, etc. Even if your complaint is about upper administration at the prison or guard harassment and you haven't had success at the warden's level, they'll still just pass it back to the people you're complaining about (with the message for them to "deal with it", basically) and someone may get hurt. The legal team at the ADC is there to keep the state from getting sued, so they would be inclined to exercise better judgment, in my unschooled assessment. Here's the ADC's Constituent Services' handbook for friends and family, though, so you know what their standard procedure is for families to address concerns (it's even been updated within the past month).


Prisoners should really file formal grievances about their mistreatment, if they dare to - if they're being threatened, placed in danger, or otherwise retaliated against, report that in your letter to the ADC attorney, or feel free to contact me and we'll strategize about your options - just know that I have no legal training and I'm learning all this from other families as we go.


I include that disclaimer because even legitimate, responsible resistance to the state can be especially dangerous to people in prison - I also have no friends in high places, politicians in my pocket, vast sums of money (I barely scrape by) or other ways of protecting people. I can't promise success; I am an antagonist more than I am a diplomat, so consider what strategies you want to employ carefully.

All I can really offer is what I've gleaned from my experience as an advocate for people who are homeless or imprisoned (including someone I love), the visibility of my blogging and street activism, and the power of a growing network of prisoners and their loved ones - including those presently in litigation with the ADC, some for wrongful deaths. I'm a community organizer and do believe that together we are strong - but no one is invincible (including the state...).

The Day the Fascists Came to Town
November 14, 2010. W. Jefferson/4th Ave., Phoenix, AZ

original photo: Robert Haasch
chalk art/post-photographic rendition: Margaret J. Plews

You may also want to contact Donna or James Hamm at Middle Ground Prison Reform for some advice - they do have some legal connections and experience, and have been at this longer than I have. I suspect Donna is far more of a diplomat than I am. They should be your first resort, actually - I'm usually the last resort for prisoners - mostly the poorest ones. Their address is 139 East Encanto Dr. Tempe, AZ 85281. Phone: 480-966-8116.


In any case, make sure the prisoner him/herself feels as if these are issues worth fighting for - even this fight in Georgia isn't just about cigarettes - it's about respect, and dignity, and autonomy for people who have been stripped of all. We should be focused on their health and sanity and civil rights, not just their leisure and privileges; they will pay for your activity and support the most. Be mindful, though, that she/he has no expectation of privacy (nor do you) when you communicate about these things - all calls and mail can (and probably will) be monitored. It can be a difficult balance to get their direction and consent while not making them a target. Sometimes I have to go with "I trust you" after making sure they know what the possible ramifications may be.


That said, here's the ADC contact info you need (Karyn's really going to love me for this):


Karyn Klausner
Office of the General Counsel
Arizona Department of Corrections
1601 West Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 542 1532
kklausner@azcorrections.gov


If you send a copy of any of that documentation to me, though, I'll put it in the hands of the ACLU and the Department of Justice - with or without identifying you and the prisoner, as he/she wishes (if it's not possible to consult them on that privately, I'll hold back names for now).

The ADC website has policies posted on it, by the way, and my sites have a Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook and an even more comprehensive Jailhouse Lawyer Manual. Explore them all so you know what you're talking about. Don't just take my word for everything - or theirs.


Here's the main contact info for the AZ state legislature:

Arizona State Senate/
House of Representatives
Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2890(toll free) 1-800-352-8404

And here's the main event. I'll try to stay on top of this now.

-----------------------From the Georgia Green Party--------------------

GA Inmates Stage Historic One Day Prison Strike Today

Thu, 2010-12-09 18:19

By Bruce A. Dixon

In an action which is unprecedented on several levels, black, brown and white inmates of Georgia's notorious state prison system are standing together for a historic one day peaceful strike today, during which they are remaining in their cells, refusing work and other assignments and activities. This is a groundbreaking event not only because inmates are standing up for themselves and their own human rughts, but because prisoners are setting an example by reaching across racial boundaries which, in prisons, have historically been used to pit oppressed communities against each other.

PRESS RELEASE BELOW THE FOLD

The action is taking place today in at least half a dozen of Georgia's more than one hundred state prisons, correctional facilities, work camps, county prisons and other correctional facilities. We have unconfirmed reports that authorities at Macon State prison have aggressively responded to the strike by sending tactical squads in to rough up and menace inmates.

Outside calls from concerned citizens and news media will tend to stay the hand of prison authorities who may tend to react with reckless and brutal aggression. So calls to the warden's office of the following Georgia State Prisons expressing concern for the welfare of the prisoners during this and the next few days are welcome.

Macon State Prison is 978-472-3900.

Hays State Prison is at (706) 857-0400

Telfair State prison is 229-868-7721

Baldwin State Prison is at (478) 445- 5218

Valdosta State Prison is 229-333-7900

Smith State Prison is at (912) 654-5000

The Georgia Department of Corrections is at http://www.dcor.state.ga.us and their phone number is 478-992-5246

This is all the news we have for now, more coming.

One in every thirteen adults in the state of Georgia is in prison, on parole or probation or some form of court or correctional supervision.

*********************************

Press Release

BIGGEST PRISONER STRIKE IN U.S. HISTORY

Thousands of Georgia Prisoners to Stage Peaceful Protest

December 8, 2010?Atlanta, Georgia

Contacts: Elaine Brown, 404-542-1211, sistaelaine@gmail.com; Valerie Porter, 229-931-5348, lashan123@att.net; Faye Sanders, 478-550-7046

Tomorrow morning, December 9, 2010, thousands of Georgia prisoners will refuse to work, stop all other activities and remain in their cells in a peaceful, one-day protest for their human rights. The December 9 Strike is projected to be the biggest prisoner protest in the history of the United States.

These thousands of men, from Baldwin, Hancock, Hays, Macon, Smith and Telfair State Prisons, among others, state they are striking to press the Georgia Department of Corrections (?DOC?) to stop treating them like animals and slaves and institute programs that address their basic human rights. They have set forth the following demands:

A LIVING WAGE FOR WORK: In violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, the DOC demands prisoners work for free.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: For the great majority of prisoners, the DOC denies all opportunities for education beyond the GED, despite the benefit to both prisoners and society.

DECENT HEALTH CARE: In violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, the DOC denies adequate medical care to prisoners, charges excessive fees for the most minimal care and is responsible for extraordinary pain and suffering.

AN END TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: In further violation of the 8th Amendment, the DOC is responsible for cruel prisoner punishments for minor infractions of rules.

DECENT LIVING CONDITIONS: Georgia prisoners are confined in over-crowded, substandard conditions, with little heat in winter and oppressive heat in summer.

NUTRITIONAL MEALS: Vegetables and fruit are in short supply in DOC facilities while starches and fatty foods are plentiful.

VOCATIONAL AND SELF-IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES: The DOC has stripped its facilities of all opportunities for skills training, self-improvement and proper exercise.

ACCESS TO FAMILIES: The DOC has disconnected thousands of prisoners from their families by imposing excessive telephone charges and innumerable barriers to visitation.

JUST PAROLE DECISIONS: The Parole Board capriciously and regularly denies parole to the majority of prisoners despite evidence of eligibility.

Prisoner leaders issued the following call: No more slavery. Injustice in one place is injustice to all. Inform your family to support our cause. Lock down for liberty!?

Contacts: Elaine Brown, 404-542-1211, sistaelaine@gmail.com; Valerie Porter, 229-931-5348, lashan123@att.net; Faye Sanders, 478-550-7046