Transcript of Grievance: For the first time in many months of monthly and before that weekly cell searches, a guard went out of her way to trash my property. On [date] Price1 and Remy2 conducted a search of my cell and property which took an hour and ten minutes.3 Mister Price appeared to conduct himself in a reasonably professional way and, while he searched with a maniacal4 thoroughness, he didn't make an intentional mess. By contrast, Remy5 left my property in an unreasonable mess apparently out of personal vindictiveness.6 In addition, she read personal mail to and from my wife, legal documents and other personal papers. Mail censorship is not her fiat.7 Reading or "scanning" my legal papers is not proper for any state employee.8 Her excuse was that she was "looking for names." I am permitted to write to my wife and/or for publication about anyone I please, prisoner, staff or civilian without being subjected to the chilling effect of state censorship. I may use the name of any person. [Additionally, the guard simply took my letter to my wife.] Footnotes and Commentary 1 "M.W." Price [more about him when the court has spoken] is a pretty much nondescript member of a clan with an astonishing number of people leaching off the system as prison guards. 2 "Remy," or correctly, "Ramey," is a hefty, aging woman relatively new to her lucrative prison guard job. Because of her manifest disinterest in privacy, we'll use her as our examply of how much information about guards is readily available online. The guards have whined that we shouldn't publish their names. We've tried to tell them that online they have very few secrets. By way of example, we've run "Ramey" through three online information services. We publish what we've found as we've found it. We would not ordinarily expose anyone, not even a guard, to such examination, but "Ramey" has shown that she's got no interest in the privacy of other so we are certain that she has no interest in her own privacy either. 3 It's understood that the ransacking of a prisoner's personal property is generally done to harass the man. The longer the team of guards (searches are done by at least two guards at a time) spend at their enterprise, the more harassing the search is intended to be. An ordinary cell-search will not take more that thirty minutes. The cells are, after all, tiny spaces and prisoners have virtually nothing. A search which takes seventy minutes is specifically intended to harass the prisoner and, in this case, to give Ramey ample time to read legal and personal papers. 4 "Maniacal" means "in a gleeful frenzy." Price certainly exhibited pleasure at tearing through the prisoner's things, but he wasn't exactly frenzied; lethargic is more like it. 5 "Remy" may be an intentional misspelling on the part of the prisoner complainant. The woman wears a name tag displaying the correct spelling of her name. A writer, the complainant often plays on words. Here, "rem" (a poisonous dose of emanation) may play on an emanation of odor. Ramey is only a corruption of the cheap linen-like fabric from Asia. 6 On an earlier occasion, Ramey took advantage of the complainant's hearing defecate to cause him a problem with his job. When he failed to display a sufficient deference to her bullying, she appears to have become vindictive as many prison guards are wont to do. 7Pennsylvania prison mail censorship is a fetish! These people really detest speech. The censorship is supposedly governed by a directive called "DC-ADM 803." It's almost entirely about sex because sex in the obsession of political extremists and the prison system. One part of the directive provides that "correspondence may be read upon the written order of the Facility Manager and reproduced upon written order of the Regional Deputy Secretary of Corrections only where there is reason to believe that the security of the facility may be impaired, that this directive is being violated, or that there is evidence of criminal activity or of a misconduct offense." (Section VI,D,l,c.) Guards simply ignore the rules. 8 See Abu-jamal v Price, et al., (Third Circuit). 154 F3d 128, (Third Circuit).