MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
MIM Distributors Letter Demanding Publications Delivered if no Valid Reason for Censoring
Show Text
February 22, 2025
Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We were recently made aware of your organization censoring multiple publications which we distribute which were sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at Indiana State Prison. A copy of the notice of this censorship, which we received from Mr. XXXXXX himself, is enclosed within. You will also find a typed notice regarding this censorship signed by M. Metcalf addressed to Mr. XXXXXX.
Nowhere on the notice does it state the reason for censorship, instead it only states that the material is “not authorized”. Not documenting the reason for censorship is obviously a gross disregard of our due process rights as well as those of Mr. XXXXXX. Regardless, we have been able to ascertain, from the aforementioned typed notice as well as our own correspondence with Mr. XXXXXX, that the reason for censorship is because there was no return address listed on the package we sent the materials in. While we acknowledge that this was a procedural error on our behalf, we would also like to point out that there was an enclosed invoice with both our return address as well as an itemized list of the publications sent to Mr. XXXXXX. It is quite absurd that your institution felt this invoice was so insufficient as proof regarding the identity of who sent the package that said institution decided to violate Mr. XXXXXX’s constitutional right to receive mail. In case we have not been abundantly clear hitherto, let us state explicitly that we, MIM(Prisons), sent the package containing Under Lock & Key Issues 81, 82, and 83, MIM Theory Issue 9, and the Revolutionary 12 Step Program to XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX and that said package with all of its contents should be immediately forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
Once again, we request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be immediately forwarded to their intended recipient, Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
02/22/2025
MIM Distributors Letter to Warden reiterating our demands
Show Text
February 22, 2025
ATTN: Warden
Indiana State Prison
1 Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360
Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We were recently made aware of your institution censoring multiple publications we distribute which were sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at Indiana State Prison. A copy of the notice of this censorship, which we received from Mr. XXXXXX himself, is enclosed within. You will also find a typed notice regarding this censorship signed by M. Metcalf addressed to Mr. XXXXXX.
Nowhere on the notice does it state the reason for censorship, instead it only states that the material is “not authorized”. Not documenting the reason for censorship is obviously a gross disregard of our due process rights as well as those of Mr. XXXXXX. Regardless, we have been able to ascertain, from the aforementioned notice typed and signed by M. Metcalf as well as our own correspondence with Mr. XXXXXX, that the reason for censorship is because there was no return address listed on the package we sent the materials in. While we acknowledge that this was a procedural error on our behalf, we would also like to point out that there was an enclosed invoice with both our return address as well as an itemized list of the publications sent to Mr. XXXXXX. It is quite absurd that your institution felt this invoice was so insufficient as proof regarding the identity of who sent the package you decided to violate Mr. XXXXXX’s constitutional right to receive mail. In case we have not been abundantly clear hitherto, let us state explicitly that we, MIM(Prisons), sent the package containing Under Lock & Key Issues 81, 82, and 83, MIM Theory Issue 9, and the Revolutionary 12 Step Program to XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX and that said package with all of its contents should be immediately forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly prevented from being given to its intended recipients. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
Once again, we request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be immediately forwarded to their intended recipient, Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
03/25/2025
IDOC says items were released to prisoner
Show Text
Package was originally denied for not having a return address and was therefore treated as from a private source. After realizing materials were from MIM Distributors they were reportedly released to prisoner on 3/7/2025
Twice I have mailed a letter to XXXXXX XXXXXX at Red Onion State Prison 10800 H. Jack Rose Highway Pound, VA 24279 (the address listed on your website). Twice the letter has been returned saying "No Mail Receptacle." I have also confirmed on your website that Mr. XXXXXX is at Red Onion. What does this mean? How can I mail a letter to Mr. XXXXXX?
Thank you,
03/24/2025
Need to use PO Box
Show Text
VADOC says to use PO Box 970 (even though website has street address)
ATTN: Warden Sarah Schroeder
Marquette Branch Prison
1960 U.S. Hwy. 41 South
Marquette, MI 49855
Re: Notice of Package/Mail Rejection
To Warden Schroeder:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 87 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. We are the distributors of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.
First and foremost we would like to draw attention to the time limit imposed for appealing this act of censorship. We did not receive notice of the censorship until 11 business days after the signed date on the form, yet the document says that we must respond within 10 business days if we wish to appeal the rejection. This is obviously a ridiculous requirement in the given context so we hope that you will not use it as an excuse to forgo appropriately addressing our appeal herein.
Next, the listed reason for censorship is that the publication is allegedly “advocating or promoting violence, group disruption, or insurrection” as stated in policy directive 05.03.118 section PP.4. The enclosed notice further lists pages 1, 2, 6-11, 15, and 16 of ULK as examples of the aforementioned allegations but neglects to include any further details as to what specific content is purportedly “advocating” positions that constitute a security concern. As the distributors of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of the alleged descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication, and it is out of our scope herein to detail the content on every page listed above to showcase this lack of prohibited content. However, we will point out that page 2, which was listed as “advocating or promoting violence, group disruption, or insurrection”, contains nothing other than simple descriptions of our organization and resources for our readers to connect with. Furthermore, page 2 contains the following disclaimer which is included in every issue of ULK: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We are utterly confused as to how your institution’s mail room can censor ULK on the basis that it promotes “violence” and “insurrection” while the very same publication explicitly disavow such acts.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason” (emphasis added). Additionally, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 87 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote IDOC Central Office
Show Text
February 22, 2025
Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We were recently made aware of your institution’s censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 87 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at Pendleton Correctional Facility. We are the distributors of ULK.
First and foremost, we would like to remind you that it is both illegal and unconstitutional to not send us, the publishers in contact with Mr. XXXXXX, notice of censorship whenever you censor the materials we send to him. Moreover, this lack of notice also brazenly goes against your own stated policies as found in IDOC policy 02-01-103 section XIX which states: “If a publication is censored, the censoring facility mail room shall give written notice to the publisher within ten (10) business days of withholding the mail.” From our communications with Mr. XXXXXX, we know that the date on the notice your institution gave them is dated November 1, 2024. So, at the time of this writing, Mr. XXXXXX’s mail has been unjustly censored for 67 days and counting with no notice being sent to us by your staff.
As if this weren’t bad enough, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by IDOC policy 02-01-103 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed in this case.
Secondly, the listed reason for censorship on the notice given to Mr. XXXXXX by your office was “STG – Supporting Black Panther Party”. This is obviously ridiculous for two reasons. First is that the Black Panther Party has not existed for over 45 years, so we do not understand how any alleged support for said group could ever constitute a security threat at your institution. Second is that the issue of ULK in question mentions the Black Panther Party only twice: once on page 2 to give a description of similarities between a program we participate in and a program of the BPP and once on page 9 to describe an example of books we have available for prisoners to order from us. In neither instance is there any discussion of “support” for whatever group, even if such “support” were to constitute a security threat (which it does not). You will find enclosed a copy of ULK 87 which has been reduced to a smaller size to fit on fewer pages.
We will no longer mince our words due to the prevalence of these illegal actions taken by the staff at Pendleton CF. You cannot make up lies and unfounded claims about the materials we send to prisoners simply because you disagree with the broader political framework we operate from. You cannot claim that our political messaging is a security threat because you do not agree with the political messaging. Your claims of security threats must have a substantive basis as laid out in the case law which enables you to censor on the grounds of said security threat. Ignoring these facts is not only illegal, it is unconstitutional and it violates the decades of civil rights which have been won in the courts by prisoners over the last half of a century. Furthermore, continued ignorance on these matters and lack of response to our appeals is a gross negligence of your institution’s duties and it opens your institution up to litigation on constitutional grounds. The fact that we need to spell this out only serves as a further indication of the absurdity of your institution’s continued negligence in these matters.
Finally, we request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by both your own policies and the law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern,
We have received your notice of censorship for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue No. 88
(hereafter referred to as ULK) sent to one ***** *******, dated 02/11/2025, which we received on 02/21/2025. A copy of this notice is included herein, along with a copy of our publication.
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under section 15 (d) of Rule 33-501.401. This section condones the prohibition of material which “depicts how to make an instrument to apply a tattoo, describes how to make or secure ink or other supplies needed to make tattoos, describes tattooing techniques, or contains a tattoo pattern or photograph that is large and distinctive enough to be used as a tattoo pattern.”
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. We encourage you to provide us with the specific information or illustrations which lend themselves towards tattooing. We ask if this rule is a prohibition of all illustrations, photographs, or artistic material within publications sent to prisoners, as in principle any image can be used as the template for a tattoo.
We request that the decision to withhold issue No. 88 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to *****. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Letter to Commissioner from MIM Distributors
Show Text
February 22, 2025
ATTN: Commissioner
Georgia Department of Corrections
300 Patrol Road
Forsyth, GA 31029
To the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections:
We are MIM(Prisons), a literary publisher and distributor of political materials to prisoners in the United States. We were recently made aware of materials we sent to prisoners at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia being returned without any notice or explanation. Upon attempting to contact both the warden at this facility as well as the prisoners whose mail was returned to us, we only received copies of the letters we sent with the word “BANNED” written on it, presumably by staff at Coffee CF. You will find scans of two of these returned envelopes enclosed herein. The prisoners in question are:
-- Prisoner A
-- Prisoner B
-- Prisoner C
We should not need to delve into laborious detail as to why these actions of the staff at Coffee CF are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Instead, we hope the following will suffice. First and foremost, these actions are in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” Furthermore, we would like to highlight that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. We would direct you to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on this matter. We would also like to highlight that as a publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
We are hoping that you can investigate this matter further in order to ensure that such acts of gross negligence and censorship are not allowed to proceed unchecked in the future and so that the prisoners listed above are allowed to receive the materials they are lawfully entitled to. We would also like to inform you that we are reaching out to several other organizations about this issue, including the Georgia Bureau of Investigations Office of Professional Standards as well as the United States Department of Justice. We look forward to hearing your response on this matter expediently so as to remedy the infringement of constitutional rights that has been committed by the staff at Coffee Correctional Facility.
Sincerely,
02/22/2025
Letter to Director of Office of Professional Standards from MIM Distributors
Show Text
February 22, 2025
ATTN: Director
Office of Professional Standards
3121 Panthersville Road
Decatur, GA 30034
To OPS Director Mays:
We are MIM(Prisons), a literary publisher and distributor of political materials to prisoners in the United States. We were recently made aware of materials we sent to prisoners at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia being returned without any notice or explanation. Upon attempting to contact both the warden at this facility as well as the prisoners whose mail was returned to us, we only received copies of the letters we sent with the word “BANNED” written on it, presumably by staff at Coffee CF. You will find scans of two of these returned envelopes enclosed herein. The prisoners in question are:
--Prisoner A
-- Prisoner B
-- Prisoner C
We should not need to delve into laborious detail as to why these actions of the staff at Coffee CF are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Instead, we hope the following will suffice. First and foremost, these actions are in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” Furthermore, we would like to highlight that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. We would direct you to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on this matter. We would also like to highlight that as a publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
We are hoping that you can investigate this matter further in order to ensure that such acts of gross negligence and censorship are not allowed to proceed unchecked in the future and so that the prisoners listed above are allowed to receive the materials they are lawfully entitled to. We would also like to inform you that we are simultaneously reaching out to the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections as well as the United States Department of Justice regarding this issue. We look forward to hearing your response on this matter expediently so as to remedy the infringement of constitutional rights that has been committed by the staff at Coffee Correctional Facility.
Sincerely,
02/22/2025
Letter to US DOJ Civil Rights Division from MIM Distributors
Show Text
February 22, 2025
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
To Whom It May Concern:
We are MIM(Prisons), a literary publisher and distributor of political materials to prisoners in the United States. We were recently made aware of materials we sent to prisoners at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia being returned without any notice or explanation. Upon attempting to contact both the warden at this facility as well as the prisoners whose mail was returned to us, we only received copies of the letters we sent with the word “BANNED” written on it, presumably by staff at Coffee CF. You will find scans of two of these returned envelopes enclosed herein. The prisoners in question are:
--Prisoner A
--Prisoner B
--Prisoner C
We should not need to delve into laborious detail as to why these actions of the staff at Coffee CF are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Instead, we hope the following will suffice. First and foremost, these actions are in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” Furthermore, we would like to highlight that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. We would direct you to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on this matter. We would also like to highlight that as a publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
We are hoping that you can investigate this matter further in order to ensure that such acts of gross negligence and censorship are not allowed to proceed unchecked in the future and so that the prisoners listed above are allowed to receive the materials they are lawfully entitled to. We would also like to inform you that we are simultaneously reaching out to the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections as well as the Georgia Bureau of Investigations Office of Professional Standards regarding this issue. We look forward to hearing your response on this matter expediently so as to remedy the multiple infringements of constitutional rights that have been committed by the staff at Coffee Correctional Facility.
MIM Distributors wrote demanding notification of censorship and challenging legality of censorship
Show Text
January 26, 2025
Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We were recently made aware of your organization censoring a publication we distribute which was sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at Miami Correctional Facility. A copy of the notice of this censorship, which we received from Mr. XXXXXX himself, is enclosed within. Additionally, as requested in the notice, you will find enclosed a copy of the censored material, shrunken to print on a more reasonable number of pages.
First and foremost, we must draw attention to the fact that your office neglected to send us any information regarding this act of censorship. This brazenly goes against your own stated policies as found in IDOC policy 02-01-103 section XIX which states: “If a publication is censored, the censoring facility mail room shall give written notice to the publisher within ten (10) business days of withholding the mail.” You will further appreciate that the date on the notice is November 19, 2024, meaning that, at the time of this writing, Mr. William’s mail has been unjustly censored for 67 days and counting with no notice being sent to us by your staff.
As if this weren’t bad enough, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by IDOC policy 02-01-103 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed in this case.
Secondly, the notice of censorship given to Mr. XXXXXX by your office states that the material was censored “due to there being maps within the material.” We should not need to spell this out for you, but the presence of geographical maps of within educational material is not an adequate basis for censorship. Furthermore, there is no possible way to construe a map of the United States as a “security threat” so we hope you will not waste our time in an attempt to do so.
We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by both your own policies and the law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
ATTN: WARDEN
Federal Correctional Institution McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford PA, 16701
Rejected Mail
To whom it may concern:
We are MIM Distributors, a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently had two pieces of mail returned to us after sending them to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. These two pieces of mail were copies of our newspaper Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”), specifically issues 81 and 87.
Firstly, we were troubled to observe that there was no notice of censorship sent along with the rejected copies of ULK. This brazenly go against Federal Bureau of Prisons policy as found in Program Statement 5265.14 which states: “When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection.”
Most worryingly, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by policy 5265.14 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed to uphold justice in this case.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and future publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Office
Mail Processing Center
451 Riverview Pkwy, Building C
Santee CA, 92071
Newspaper Publication Censorship
To Whom It May Concern:
We were recently made aware of your office censoring a publication we distribute called Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX. We are the publishers of ULK. A copy of the relevant documents we have received are enclosed within.
First and foremost, we must draw attention to the fact that your office neglected to send us any information regarding this act of censorship. This brazenly goes against your own stated policies as found in DSB P&P section P.3 header III.F which states: “When an item is rejected, both the sender and incarcerated person will receive notification of the opportunity to appeal within five business days. The notification will be given in the form of a copy of the completed J-320 form.”
Not only this, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by DSB P&P section P.3 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed in this case.
Secondly, the notice of censorship given to Mr. XXXXXX by your office which was then forwarded to us, enclosed within, is so lacking in detail that it is impossible for us to substantively dispute the basis of censorship being put forth. Namely, the notice simply states that some copy of ULK is being censored but does not make any mention as to the issue number of ULK. Seeing as we have published nearly 100 issues of ULK totaling over 1000 pages, there is no way for us to materially argue against the allegations being made.
Regardless, let us examine the allegations being leveled to justify this act of censorship. The enclosed notice says ULK has been censored because it promotes or is related to one of: “Violence, Weapons, Hatred, Drugs, Racism, Gang/Mafia, Criminal Codes (including Writings, Tattoos, Photos).” As publishers of ULK, we can confidently assert that our publication does not promote any of these categories. In fact, we even state on page 2 of every issue of ULK: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by both your own policies and the law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
ATTN: WARDEN
Federal Correctional Institution McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford PA, 16701
Rejected Mail
To whom it may concern:
We are MIM Distributors, a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently had two pieces of mail returned to us after sending them to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. These two pieces of mail were copies of our newspaper Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”), specifically issues 81 and 87.
Firstly, we were troubled to observe that there was no notice of censorship sent along with the rejected copies of ULK. This brazenly go against Federal Bureau of Prisons policy as found in Program Statement 5265.14 which states: “When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection.”
Most worryingly, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by policy 5265.14 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed to uphold justice in this case.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and future publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
