Killing The Bill of Rights

Persons incarcerated in America's prisons are not without the protection of the Constitution. They do not forfeit all their rights when those iron bars close behind them. lf that were so, then all Americans would also be without constitutional rights because many is the innocent individual who finds him or herself behind those same bars. lndeed, the attempt to deny imprisoned persons at least their 1st and 14th Amendment rights has already been adjudicated in Procunier v. Martinez, [1974] 416 US 396, pages 415-418.

The case involved censorship regulations under which the penal institution proscribed the inmate's correspondence because he, ". .unduly complain[ed], magnif[ied] grievances, express[ed] inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views or beliefs" considered "defamatory" or "otherwise inappropriate." The District Court held these regulations unconstitutional and void under the 1st Amendment for their ambiguity. The Court also ruled the regulation in violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process and enjoined its continued enforcement. The Court required that the inmate of the rejected correspondence be notified of his right to protest the decision and to have said correspondence reviewed by a knowledgeable prison official other than the original censor and that his or her decision be based upon the Court's rejection of the regulation involved.

lnmate Matthew Hale has lost what the Courts have ruled he has every right to maintain-his 1st and 14th Amendment rights, Matt's "mail reader," Rudy Marques is constantly harassing him, withholding his mail often for months at a time and returning letters to those who send them because they contain "gang related" material-a totally false claim. And now, the attorney for the penal institution, James Wiencek, has not only refused to validate chapters of Matt’s new book, but despite efforts to address the unconstitutional censorship enforced by Wiencek by rewriting those chapters, Matt has been informed by this petty tyrant that his edited chapter has been "trashed". lt is obvious that this man who may be responsible for Matt’s harassment, believes that he can nullify at least two Amendments of the Bill of Rights. lf this is permitted despite the District Court's ruling, the question then becomes, when will such tyrants be permitted to nullify the remaining eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights?

                                FREE MATT HALE!