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 protests censorship and no notification for disapproval
Show Text
Warden (A) William Knipp
Mule Creek State Prison
P.O. Box 409099
Ione, CA 95640
March 14, 2012
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Mule Creek State Prison ? exclusion of publication sent to Mr. XXX
Dear Warden Knipp,
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at Mule Creek State Prison. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a magazine titled MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy on 01/30/2012. This magazine was in an envelope with another publication that the prisoner received.
Even though Mr. XXX received the other contents of the 01/30/2012 envelope, he did not receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the magazine was censored. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination either.
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.
As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
2) in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CC: Affected parties
04/05/2012
Response from warden to our protest letter claiming MT10 never arrived Download Documentation
MIM Distributors says no notification is illegal, again
Show Text
Michael Stainer, Warden (A)
California Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581
April 4, 2012
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at California Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors
Dear Warden Stainer,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at California Correctional Institution (CCI). I wrote to you on March 15, 2012 regarding a similar issue -- the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 22 (September/October 2011) sent to Mr. XXX. I never received a response from you to my March 15, 2012 letter. I am writing this letter because, again, MIM Distributors did not receive notification for the censorship of several items intended for delivery to Mr. XXX.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner several different publications. Precisely we sent Mr. XXX:
1. Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011) sent via USPS Presorted Standard Mail on November 19, 2011
2. A large manila envelope containing Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) and MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy sent via USPS Presorted Standard Mail on January 30, 2012
We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received any of the above listed publications. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from CCI Mailroom staff. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations, and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know whether or not a determination has been made over the listed publications;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and for all future censorship determinations at CCI to be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notifications and appeal rights.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
CDCR, Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 124 South
Sacramento, CA 95811
Director's Review Committee upholds censorship
Show Text
From: Mailroom
Subject: DRC Ruling on Publication
This is to inform you that the DRC upheld the MSCP denial of the following publication:
Publication Under Lock & Key Date Nov/Dec 2011 N 23
DRC denial date 1/18/12
04/03/2012
MIM Distributors says censorship without notification to publisher is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Hughes Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Hughes Unit in Gatesville, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Hughes Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several people at Hughes Unit that they never received the publication listed above. Instead it was censored. We are aware that some people appealed the censorship decision, and that it was upheld by the Director's Review Committee. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department, either from the mailroom staff at Hughes Unit, or from the Director's Review Committee.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to appeal the censorship decision to exclude Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011);
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Hughes Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Edward Smith, Senior Warden
Hughes Unit
Route 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597
Gilbert Campuzano, Region VI Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region VI Director's Office
4616 West Howard Lane, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78728
MIM Distributors says no notification to publisher is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Clements Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners in Clements Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several prisoners that they never received the publication listed above. Most of these prisoners appealed the exclusion of Under Lock & Key No 23, and sent MIM Distributors the Director's Review Committee decision to deny the publication. MIM Distributors never received any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Clements Unit.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors) or prisoner, under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of our materials;
2. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Clements Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
John Adams, Senior Warden
Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
MIM Distributors says censorship without notification is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Hughes Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Hughes Unit in Gatesville, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Hughes Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several people at Hughes Unit that they never received the publication listed above. Instead it was censored. We are aware that some people appealed the censorship decision, and that it was upheld by the Director's Review Committee. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department, either from the mailroom staff at Hughes Unit, or from the Director's Review Committee.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to appeal the censorship decision to exclude Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011);
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Hughes Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Edward Smith, Senior Warden
Hughes Unit
Route 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597
Gilbert Campuzano, Region VI Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region VI Director's Office
4616 West Howard Lane, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78728
MIM Distributors protests no notification given regarding censorship
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Eastham Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Eastham Unit in Lovelady, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. XXX) that he never received the publication listed above. Neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors received any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Eastham Unit.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned publication;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision, and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Eastham Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Charles Bell, Senior Warden
Eastham Unit
2665 Prison Road #1
Lovelady, TX 75851
Michael Upshaw, Region I Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region I Director?s Office
1225 Avenue G
Huntsville, TX 77340
MIM Distributors says no notification is illegal
Show Text
Warden (A) Michael Stainer
California Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581
March 14, 2012
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at California Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to Mr. XXX
Dear Warden Stainer,
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at California Correctional Institution. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned multiple items which he never received.
Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
? Under Lock & Key issue 22 (September/ October 2011) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 09/21/2011
? Under Lock & Key issue 23 (November/December 2011) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 11/18/2011
We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received these materials. Nor did he receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination either.
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.
As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters;
2) in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CC: Affected parties
04/03/2012
Prison admin says ULK22 and ULK23 were never denied
MIM Distributors asks for chance to appeal censorship
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Clements Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners in Clements Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several prisoners that they never received the publication listed above. Most of these prisoners appealed the exclusion of Under Lock & Key No 23, and sent MIM Distributors the Director's Review Committee decision to deny the publication. MIM Distributors never received any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Clements Unit.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors) or prisoner, under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of our materials;
2. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Clements Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
John Adams, Senior Warden
Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
MIM Distributors says no notification to publisher is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Lewis Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Gib Lewis Unit in Woodville, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. XXX) that he never received the publication listed above. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Lewis Unit.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned publication;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision, and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Lewis Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Cody Ginsel, Senior Warden
Gib Lewis Unit
777 FM 3497
Woodville, TX 75990
Michael Upshaw, Region I Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region I Director?s Office
1225 Avenue G
Huntsville, TX 77340
MIM Distributors says no notification to publisher is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Smith Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Smith Unit in Lamesa, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. XXX) that he never received the publication listed above. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department, either from the mailroom staff at Smith Unit, or from the Director's Review Committee.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned publication;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision, and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Smith Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Richard Vogelgesang, Senior Warden
Smith Unit
1313 CR 19
Lamesa, TX 79331-1898
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
MIM Distributors writes to prison administrators regarding ongoing censorship without notification
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Allred Unit ? History of censorship without giving notification to publisher or prisoners
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents that recently occurred at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, Texas. I apologize that this information is somewhat dated; unfortunately since we were not notified of this censorship, we had to rely on our own investigation which took some time.
Using the U.S. Postal Service, MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Allred Unit mail which they never received. The mailroom staff at Allred Unit failed to provide notice of censorship to the prisoners and MIM Distributors. Below is a detailed outline of the mail I am referring to:
To XXX
1. A letter dated June 2011 sent via First Class mail on June 26, 2011
2. Under Lock & Key No. 21 (July/August 2011) sent via Presorted Standard mail on July 28, 2011
To YYY
Under Lock & Key No. 22 (November/December 2011) sent via Presorted Standard mail on September 21, 2011
To ZZZ
A book titled The Black Panthers Speak sent via USPS on May 15, 2011
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned materials;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision, and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Allred Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Richard Wathen, Senior Warden
Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park, TX 76367
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
MIM Distributors says censorship without notification is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Hughes Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Hughes Unit in Gatesville, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Hughes Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several people at Hughes Unit that they never received the publication listed above. Instead it was censored. We are aware that some people appealed the censorship decision, and that it was upheld by the Director's Review Committee. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department, either from the mailroom staff at Hughes Unit, or from the Director's Review Committee.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to appeal the censorship decision to exclude Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011);
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Hughes Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Edward Smith, Senior Warden
Hughes Unit
Route 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597
Gilbert Campuzano, Region VI Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region VI Director's Office
4616 West Howard Lane, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78728
MIM Distributors writes to administrators regarding history of censorship without notification
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Allred Unit ? History of censorship without giving notification to publisher or prisoners
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents that recently occurred at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, Texas. I apologize that this information is somewhat dated; unfortunately since we were not notified of this censorship, we had to rely on our own investigation which took some time.
Using the U.S. Postal Service, MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Allred Unit mail which they never received. The mailroom staff at Allred Unit failed to provide notice of censorship to the prisoners and MIM Distributors. Below is a detailed outline of the mail I am referring to:
To XXX
1. A letter dated June 2011 sent via First Class mail on June 26, 2011
2. Under Lock & Key No. 21 (July/August 2011) sent via Presorted Standard mail on July 28, 2011
To YYY
Under Lock & Key No. 22 (November/December 2011) sent via Presorted Standard mail on September 21, 2011
To ZZZ
A book titled The Black Panthers Speak sent via USPS on May 15, 2011
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned materials;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision, and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Allred Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Richard Wathen, Senior Warden
Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park, TX 76367
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
MIM Distributors says no notification of censorship is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Clements Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners in Clements Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several prisoners that they never received the publication listed above. Most of these prisoners appealed the exclusion of Under Lock & Key No 23, and sent MIM Distributors the Director's Review Committee decision to deny the publication. MIM Distributors never received any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Clements Unit.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. XXXXXX, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors) or prisoner, under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of our materials;
2. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Clements Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
John Adams, Senior Warden
Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Jason Heaton, Region V Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region V Director's Office
304 West 6th Street
Plainview, TX 79072
MIM Distributors says we were not notified of censorship
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Lewis Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner xxx from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Gib Lewis Unit in Woodville, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. xxx) that he never received the publication listed above. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department or the mailroom staff at Lewis Unit.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know what determination has been made over the mentioned publication;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision, and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Lewis Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Cody Ginsel, Senior Warden
Gib Lewis Unit
777 FM 3497
Woodville, TX 75990
Michael Upshaw, Region I Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region I Director?s Office
1225 Avenue G
Huntsville, TX 77340
I appealed it December 30, 2011. I will write a letter to the Director's Review Committee, and make my complaint.
01/25/2012
Inter-Office Communications
Show Text
From: Mailroom
Subject: DRC Ruling on Publication
This is to inform you that the DRC upheld the MSCP denial of the following publication:
Publication Under Lock & Key Date Nov/Dec 2011 N 23
DRC denial date 1/18/12
04/03/2012
MIM Distributors says censorship without notification is illegal
Show Text
Ombudsman Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
April 3, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Hughes Unit ? exclusion of publication sent to several prisoners from MIM Distributors
Dear Ombudsman Coordinator,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Hughes Unit in Gatesville, Texas.
MIM Distributors sent several prisoners at Hughes Unit a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011). This newsletter was mailed via Standard Presorted Mail with the USPS on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from several people at Hughes Unit that they never received the publication listed above. Instead it was censored. We are aware that some people appealed the censorship decision, and that it was upheld by the Director's Review Committee. I am writing because MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from your Department, either from the mailroom staff at Hughes Unit, or from the Director's Review Committee.
The TDCJ Board Policy-03.91 (rev. 2) "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" states at Section IV E "If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules."
Additionally, both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to appeal the censorship decision to exclude Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011);
3. and that all future decisions to censor material from MIM Distributors to anyone held in Hughes Unit be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notification to the publisher and prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Edward Smith, Senior Warden
Hughes Unit
Route 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597
Gilbert Campuzano, Region VI Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region VI Director's Office
4616 West Howard Lane, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78728
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2759.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2640.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2669.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2201.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c2649.jpg){kind=link}
