persistence about Mrs. Robinson's legal papers both violated Rule 5 of the Inmate Rule Book which requires that an inmate obey orders 'promptly and fully,' pending whatever appeal he may wish to take to higher authority.  In addition, his silence violated Rule 12, enjoining inmates to answer 'fully and truthfully' all questions put by prison officials.  In sum, Follette assigned as his motive for Sostre's punishment the fact that Sostre's 'whole attitude was one of defiance, of flatly refusing * * * to conduct himself as a proper inmate within the rules, regulations and laws set down by the State of New York and the Department of Correction.'  Section 140 of the New York Correction Law authorized Follette, by its terms in his unfettered discretion,issues of the Harvard Law Review and stamped by prison officials to indicate that the books, Sostre's personal property, were not to circulate to other prisoners; (3) a letter dated June 10, 1968, from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York addressed to a fellow-prisoner of Sostre's, Juan Moline, a Puerto Rican, which Sostre later explained he was translating for Moline from English into Spanish.  Judge Motley believed Sostre's testimony that he had never seen the pieces of emery paper before they were introduced by defendants at trial.  312 F.Supp. at 869.  The other contraband indicated that Sostre had violated prison rules by circulating his law periodicals to other prisoners and by giving a fellow-prisoner legal assistance without first securing the Warden's