MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
24 April 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
On 13 April 2010, Florida State Prison Mail Room Personnel K. Ferguson rejected a letter from MIM Distributors P.O. Box 40799, San Francisco, CA 94140 to Mr. XXX. This letter is to appeal the decision to deny this letter by K. Ferguson. I have attached a copy of the letter in question for your reference. The reason K. Ferguson for this censorship was that the "mail establishes or conducts business."
On the FDC website there is a page titled "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Writing to an Inmate." On this page there is one rule about "business."
J. Incoming mail shall be disapproved for mailing or delivery to an inmate if any part of it:
xii. It contains an advertisement promoting any of the following where the advertisement is the focus of, rather than being incidental to, the publication or the advertising is prominent or prevalent throughout the publication.
* Three-way calling services;
* Pen-pal services;
* The purchase of products or services with postage stamps; or
* Conducting a business or profession while incarcerated
As you can see from the content of the letter, there is no advertisement for conducting business or developing a profession for prisoners. On the contrary, the main focus of the letter is an invitation to join a study group.
We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.
Central Office Media Review Committee
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050
4 April 2010
Dear Sir or Madam,
On 16 March 2010 mailroom staff at Clinton Correctional Facility censored an unnamed document to Mr. xxx, who is a prisoner held at Clinton. Not only is there no indication as to what the letter was that was censored from Mr. xxx, but no explanation is given as to what was "unauthorized" about the material contained in the envelope. I have included with this letter a copy of the memorandum I am speaking of.
Lawfully, the prisoner and the sender of the material must be informed of what is being censored, and specifically why it is deemed a threat to the safety and security of the prison, prisoners, and staff. This censorship is therefore completely illegal.
As we are sure you are aware,
?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
and,
"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800
This letter is to (1) request more information about this censorship, namely WHAT and WHY. We would also like to (2) appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that material from MIM Distributors is "unauthorized material."
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Letter to Director Requesting Explanation of censorship
Show Text
Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020
18 August 2009
Director Lowell Clark,
This letter is to inquire about the continued blanket censorship of mail from MIM Distributors without any review of the mail and without notification of why the mail was returned. In February, my colleague, AAAA BBBB, wrote you regarding this matter and Angie Stevens responded requesting a copy of one of the envelopes returned. Ms BBBB responded to Ms Stevens with one of the envelopes and never received a response. To date your office has not addressed these concerns.
On July 29, 2009 numerous copies of the newsletter Under Lock & Key Issue 9 were returned to sender unopened and with no indication as to why. I understand there is a rule that prisoners must notify the staff of any subscriptions they may have in order to receive them. However, I know at least some of the subscribers whose mail was returned have notified the mailroom of their subscriptions (and all others should be doing so soon).
In the past not only was MIM Distributors not notified of the reasons for censorship, but neither were the subscribers to Under Lock & Key. The lack of inspection, lack of notification, and lack of response to our inquiries all seem to be outside of standard practice for the Department. Your explanation of these events will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your attention,
XXXX YYYY
p.s. I have enclosed a photocopy of one of the envelopes for your reference. All envelopes were unopened.
Response to Division Director requesting clarification of rules
Show Text
Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020
20 September 2009
Director Lowell Clark,
I received your letter from September 9, 2009 and appreciate your response. I do have the two previous letters that you mentioned, however, there is some confusion about our understandings of those letters (and others from your department) that led to my last letter. My understanding of rules cited in the November 17, 2008 letter from Capt. Robert Jensen is that Standard Mail will be rejected unless it is mail that the prisoner has subscribed to or other exceptions that are listed. The letter goes on to state that once the administration is notified of the subscription then the mail will no longer be returned. After multiple letters from MIM Distributors and notification of our subscribers we thought this question of the subscriptions was cleared up. Yet again, our mail was returned.
In your most recent letter you imply that ?Standard mail will be refused?. Period. This is not what Fdr03 says, nor would it be in compliance with established case law (see Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001)). Furthermore, this matter has already been cleared up at CUCF, so there is some discrepancy as to how the rules are being applied at Utah State Prison.
Are you saying that there is no way for prisoners at USP to receive a normal subscription to Under Lock & Key because it is sent Presorted Standard mail? Or is there just something else that subscribers must do to get their subscriptions approved for delivery?
Response to Div Director re: mailing list & continued censorship in IM
Show Text
Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020
26 October 2009
Director Lowell Clark,
We have received your October 14th letter stating that pre-sorted mail will be delivered to prisoners in Utah prisons as long as prisoners have notified the administration of their subscriptions. Thank you for clarifying this matter for us and for the staff in the mail room there. It may be a good idea to publicize this policy more generally so that other prisoners don?t have unnecessary problems joining mailing lists such as ours in the future.
As far as sending you a list of our subscribers, this would be against our confidentially policy for our readers. Instead I will cc individuals who have subscribed so that they may contact you themselves to obtain any information. If there are any problems obtaining this information, MIM Distributors will be happy to put anyone in contact with you at their request.
One question that remains, is that recent First Class mail was returned stating that prisoners in Intensive Management cannot receive magazines. If this is true, can you provide me with a copy the regulation that sets this standard. If not, then I am requesting that this censorship be stopped as well.
Thank you again for looking into this for us,
12/03/2009
Div Director says that mail policy for Intensive Management is confidential Download Documentation
04/08/2010
Request for IMU mail policies
Show Text
Records Bureau
Utah Department of Corrections
14717 S. Minuteman Dr.
Draper, UT 84020
8 April 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is to request a copy of the policies that dictate mail to/from prisoners held in the Intensive Management Unit at Utah State Prison. We have been going back and forth with Director Lowell Clark's office regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors. When we ask them to tell us what rules we are violating, they respond that it is confidential information. However in one letter Mr. Clark's office advised us to write to this address to request the policies. This information would be extremely helpful for us in our attempts to properly comply with IMU policies at Utah State Prison.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Prisoner appeals censorship on formal level
Show Text
See documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" above
04/03/2010
Ban is illegal
Show Text
Carl Ross, Mailroom Supervisor
Folsom State Prison
P.O. Box 910
Folsom, CA 95763
4 April 2010
Dear Supervisor Ross,
On 19 March 2010 you sent a letter to MIM Distributors saying that "MIM Publications will not be delivered to inmate XXX housed at Folsom State Prison." This implies that all mail to Mr. XXX will be censored in a complete ban of MIM.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually. In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2009 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at Folsom State Prison, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely. Also, for your reference:
"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385
"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
1 February 2010
Dear Warden Adams,
This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009) from MIM Distributors to many prisoners at CSATF. We suspect that it has been censored from all of its intended recipients, but have only confirmed this with XXX and YYY. According to CSATF mailroom staff, the reason this newsletter was censored is because it "violates CCR Title 15, 3006 (c) (1) Any matter tending to incite."
We request to (1) appeal the decision made by CSATF mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as undeliverable. We also ask for (2) an more complete explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, because surely everything that incites anything can't be censored by CCR. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009) be deliverable to XXX, YYY, and any other prisoners who so desire to communicate with MIM(Prisons)
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Sgt. Pugliese's arguments are incomplete and out of context
Show Text
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
4 April 2010
Dear Warden Adams,
On 24 February 2010 Mailroom Sergeant C. Pugliese wrote to us with a more thorough explanation as to why our mail has been censored at CSATF. We appreciate this explanation greatly, but still do not believe that it is legal to censor mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners at CSATF. This letter is to appeal the decision of "denied" made by Sgt. Pugliese and have the matter investigated at a higher level of review.
Attached is a copy of the letter we received from Sgt. Pugliese. In this letter, Sgt. Pugliese took the evidence out of context, and/or provided examples that are not legitimate threats. For example, Sgt. Pugliese provided the following quote as an example of something that is a threat to the good order of the institution,
"United Struggle from Within is an organization of anti-imperialist prisoners, led by MIM(Prisons) and is a place for anti-imperialists to organize from within the prison system."
There is no rule that says prisoners are not allowed to oppose imperialism, especially because MIM(Prisons) only advocates legal and nonviolent means of working for change. For example, from Under Lock & Key, a publication that is distributed by MIM Distributors,
"MIM(Prisons) struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time..."
On page 1 of Sgt. Pugliese's letter, she/he says that "MIM advocates that inmates come together as a 'revolutionary group' for the purposes of imposing their idea of prison reform." This is hardly a valid reason to censor a publication. It isn't Sgt. Pugliese's job to determine the merit of MIM(Prisons)'s idea of prison reform, and she/he should not use their personal disagreements with MIM(Prisons)'s platform as a reason for illegally censoring letters and publications. Sgt. Pugliese's job is to follow CDCR policy, and it is your job as Warden to ensure that she/he does just that.
In that same paragraph, Sgt. Pugliese asserts that "The MIM literature advocates seizing public power through armed struggle and overturning prison administrations 'by stripping them of control.'" I do not know where Sgt. Pugliese has found this claim, and she/he does not say where it is from. It is either an inaccurate paraphrase purported to be a quote, or it is taken grossly out of context.
In closing, we would like to appeal this decision by Mailroom Sergeant C. Pugliese to the next level of review.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
3 April 2010
Dear Sir or Madam,
On 18 March 2010 mailroom staff D. Jackson censored a magazine titled MIM Theory issue 11, 1996 from Mr. XXX at Florida State Prison. The magazine was returned to the sender, MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. There was a notice of rejection of the publication included in the return envelope, however the form gave no information as to why the publication was rejected. There was an 'X' marked to indicate that the publication is rejected because it contains inadmissible subject matter. However, under "Criteria in Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401 FOC, Admissible Reading Material, that authorizes IMPOUNDMENT or REJECTION of the publication due to subject matter:" none of the criteria were marked.
I am sure you are aware that it is illegal to censor mail to prisoners without explaining to the sender and the intended recipient specifically why the item is a threat to security. This letter is to (1) request more information on why this item was censored, and (2) appeal that decision made by mailroom staff D. Jackson. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that the above mentioned publication should be rejected at FSP.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Senior Warden Chuck Biscoe
Beto Unit
1391 FM 3328
Tennessee Colony, TX 75880
2 April 2010
Dear Warden Biscoe,
This letter is regarding the censorship of several letters from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Beto Unit. Mr. AAA and Mr. BBB have had letters denied delivery to them including the publication Under Lock & Key and a guide to fighting censorship that MIM Distributors sends out. The censorship guide encourages prisoners to use legal means of fighting censorship, including filing grievances, appealing them, and taking the case to court if necessary. There is no valid or legal reason these letters or publications should be censored.
We would like to bring it to your attention that your mailroom staff is not correctly applying TDCJ policy to these materials, including the absence of notification to the prisoners or MIM Distributors that the letters have been denied, and why. Occasionally "need DC#" will be written on the envelope when it is returned, but when we check the prisoner's DC# on the TDCJ website, it is accurate.
With this letter we request (1) that an investigation be made into why mail from MIM Distributors is censored from Mr. AAA and Mr. BBB, and possibly others. We also request (2) that your mailroom staff at Beto Unit be retrained to notify the senders and intended recipients of mail be notified when and why it is denied, as per law. Lastly, we request (3) that mail from mailroom staff stop tampering with correspondences between MIM Distributors and prisoners at Beto Unit, as it is their right to communicate with us.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Pages 6, 7, 10 and 11 contain correspondence which encourages actions which may be disruptive to the orderly operation of the institution.[Download Documentation]
Letter to Regional Director appealing ban of ULK
Show Text
U.S. Bureau of Prisons
North Central Regional Office
400 State Street
Tower II, 8th Floor
Kansas City, KS 66101
2 April 2010
Dear Regional Director,
This letter is regarding blanket censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at U.S. Penitentiary Marion for the past year. The publication in question is titled Under Lock & Key. It is a newsletter that contains articles that are written by prisoners. No identifying information, such as names of ID#s, is disclosed in the newsletter.
On 22 April 2009, ULK issue 7 (March 2009) was censored because it contains inmate-to-inmate information. However, considering prisoners are allowed to write for the press, and prisoners are allowed to read the press, it would be illegal to claim that ULK falls under this category of being inmate-to-inmate correspondence, unless you are also censoring newspapers that have any authors who are currently in prison. This same illegitimate reason was given to censor issue 9 (July 2009) and issue 10 (September 2009). Issue 8 was not sent into Marion prison, which is probably why it wasn't censored.
Issue 11 ( November 2009) was censored because pages 6, 7, 10, and 11 "contains correspondence which encourages actions which may be disruptive to the orderly operation of the institution." On page 7 of issue 11, in a box titled "What is MIM(Prisons)?" is written "MIM(Prisons) struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time..." and the rest of the publication stays true to that principle.
This letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff at USP Marion. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key should be completely banned at that institution. We would also like to ask that further correspondence between MIM Distributors and any prisoners at USP Marion go on without harassment or illegal censorship in the future.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Aref Fakhoury, Warden
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91708
21 February 2010
Dear Warden Fakhoury,
This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 12 (Jan/Feb 2010) from MIM Distributors to XXX at California Institution for Men. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with a stamp that said "against regulations."
This letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key issue 12 is "against regulations." The newsletter was received by many prisoners across the state of California, and the country. Apparently it was not "against regulations" at those hundreds of other facilities.
We request (1) an independent review the decision made by California Institution for Men mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as "against regulations." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 12 be deliverable to XXX, and any other prisoner at CIM who wishes to correspond with MIM Distributors.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
04/02/2010
Letter to warden explaining ban is outdated
Show Text
Warden Aref Fakhoury
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91710
2 April 2010
Dear Warden Fakhoury,
Thank you for your timely response to my inquiry regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to QQQ at CIM. In your response you referred to an August 25, 2007 ban on all MIM mail.
Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in January 2010, Under Lock & Key is still being banned based on the outdated memo you referred to?
Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with QQQ and other who wish to communicate with MIM Distributors held at CIM.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
2 April 2010
Dear Warden Adams,
On 24 February 2010 mailroom staff V. Oyerviolez wrongly censored a magazine from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at CSATF. This letter is to appeal that decision, and to allow the magazine to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX.
The reason that V. Oyerviolez gave for this censorship this censorship was CCR Title 15, Section 3006 (c) (11) "Catalogs, advertisements, brochures and materials whose primary purpose is to sell product(s)" shall be disapproved for delivery. The item in question is actually a magazine, not a catalog, titled MIM Theory 14: United Front. Admittedly, the inside of the back cover of the magazine has advertisements for other issues of MIM Theory. However, it is obvious that V. Oyerviolez did not do a thorough or accurate investigation of the true nature of this magazine, because MIM Theory 14: United Front is NOT a catalog, but instead 170 pages of pure plain text. Even the front cover identifies the publication as a "theoretical journal" which implies wordiness, not sales.
Upon review, this magazine will be determined to not be a catalog, and should be permitted for timely delivery to Mr. XXX. It is ridiculous and illegal that the impotency of your mailroom staff at CSATF should lead to such hassle and delay. We ask that you reprimand V. Overviolez for their intentional disregard of their responsibility to their job, and retrain your staff on how to tell the difference between a document that is made up of articles and a document that is made up of advertisements.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1093.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1077.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1102.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1103.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1108.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1100.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1104.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1101.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1057.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1067.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1058.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1430.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1147.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c924.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1056.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1043.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c972.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1039.jpg){kind=link}