This is a transcript of a letter I sent in June 1997 to the Office of the Ombudsman. After that comes the answer from the Office of the Ombudsman and last my answer to that. I leave it to you to judge about the correspondence.
Niels

At May 29 I sent a letter to #878 Martin A. Draughon, Ellis Unit 1, which included some papers for him.

Yesterday I received a letter from Martin, who told me that the mail room at Ellis Unit 1 had denied him to have the papers - allegedly because on some of them there was printed a photo of Martin.

I will therefor:

1. Complaint of my letters not being delivered to Martin - and of me not being notified from the authorities who made this decision and not even bothered to return the papers in question to me.
2. Ask what the reason is for this decision - is it for security reasons that Martin cannot receive a photo of himself, and if so: Are there other people whose photo might threaten the security?
3. Ask to be informed what other restrictions there are in the communication between Martin and me, what the reasons are for them, and how you will make sure that I am being properly informed in case I undeliberately break these rules.

Sincerely

Niels Graverholt

Re: DRAUGHON, Martin
TDCJ-ID#000878 - Ellis Unit/Deathrow

Dear Niels Graverholt:

Reference is made to my letter to you dated July 8,1997. An investigation has been conducted regarding the issues mentioned in your letter, and the following response is offered.

The TDCJ-m Correspondence Rules were established in accordance with the decision of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, in the Guajardo case. A copy of the correspondence rules have been enclosed for your information.

When correspondence is rejected, the sender will be notified of the rejection. However, in this particular case, there was no return address on the envelope, so mailroom staff did not have the information needed to mail a copy of the notice of rejection to you. Rejected items are not automatically returned to the sender; rejected items are held to allow both the offender and sender to appeal the rejection, if they so wish. In this ease, Offender Draughon did appeal the rejection.
Appeals are made to the Director's Review Committee.

The correspondence in question was denied for the on photographs of Offender Draughon were photocopied on the pages. In accordance with established policy, offenders may not receive copies, enlargements, or reproductions of photographs. This policy was established due to the use of offender photographs in various mail "scams" and for activities in violation of institutional rules such as identifying offenders for recruitment or as targets of possible harm by security threat groups or "gangs". It was the decision of the Director's Review Committee to-uphold the unit rejection of the correspondence containing the photocopied photographs of offender Draughon. Offender Draughon will be allowed to choose the manner of disposition of the rejected correspondence; he has several options for making disposition, including returning the material to yon at his expense if he wishes to do so:

Should you have additional questions regarding correspondence with Offender Draughon, you may contact the office of the Mail System Coordinators Panel, P. O. Box 99, Huntsville, Texas 77342-0099.

Sincerely,
Kathy Cleere
Office of Ombudsman
KC:js

cc: File

Enclosures (2)

Re: DRAUGHON, Martin
TDCJ-ID#000878 - Ellis Unit/Deathrow

Thank you for your answer dated July 24.

You write:

When correspondence is rejected, the sender will be notified of the rejection. However, in this particular case, there was no return address on the envelope, so mailroom staff did not have the information needed to mail a copy of the notice of rejection to you.

It is correct that there was no return address on the envelope. But the letter from me was written on a writing paper with a letterhead exactly like the one you have in your hand now, and I suppose that you agree with me that it should by quite obvious for anyone that the 3 lines in the top right corner is an address, also that they are probably the address of the sender of the envelope in which it is enclosed.
So I cannot accept this "explanation".

I also fail to understand how a picture of Martin A. Draughon sent from me to him can cause "scam" or "activities in violation of institutional rules such as identifying offenders for recruitment or as targets of possible harm to security threat groups or 'gangs'".
So I hope that you can explain that for me.



Sincerely

Niels Graverholt

Re: DRAUGHON, Martin
TDCJ-ID#000878 - Ellis Unit/Deathrow

On August 17 I sent you the following letter:

Thank you for your answer dated July 24.
You write:

When correspondence is rejected, the sender will be notified of the rejection. However, in this particular case, there was no return address on the envelope, so mailroom staff did not have the information needed to mail a copy of the notice of rejection to you.

It is correct that there was no return address on the envelope. But the letter from me was written on a writing paper with a letterhead exactly like the one you have in your hand now, and I suppose that you agree with me that it should by quite obvious for anyone that the 3 lines in the top right corner is an address, also that they are probably the address of the sender of the envelope in which it is enclosed.
So I cannot accept this "explanation".
I also fail to understand how a picture of Martin A. Draughon sent from me to him can cause "scam" or "activities in violation of institutional rules such as identifying offenders for recruitment or as targets of possible harm to security threat groups or 'gangs'".
So I hope that you can explain that for me.

As far as I can see I have not received any answer to that.

Sincerely

Niels Graverholt