MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
This letter is to inquire about mail that has been censored from prisoner X that was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. Mr. X and MIM have been in regular contact for several months when we stopped hearing from him. As it turns out, he hasn't received the last three items we've sent to him. One is a study group assignment that MIM runs, and the other two are issue 8 (May 2009) and issue 9 (July 2009) of the newsletter Under Lock & Key.
Neither Mr. X, nor MIM Distributors were notified by the mail room that this mail was denied. This, of course, violates federal law Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800 which states that "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."
We request that in the future your mail room notifies Mr. Carter and MIM Distributors of censorship. Also, we request to know why the mail mentioned was denied delivery. If you could please mail us a copy of the Lanesboro CI mail rules, that would be of great help.
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
August 31, 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z on August 6, 2009.
The reasons this publication were denied are listed as threatening the good order of the institution, making security threat group references, and depicting violence. This is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009). It was censored because it "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.
Additionally, there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence." Unless you are going to ban the New York Times and all other newspapers from Menard Correctional Center, we don't think this is a sufficient example that ULK threatens rehabilitation by depicting violence. Similarly, newspapers frequently report on the activity of groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups."
Mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially becuase we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
Appeal to Warden explaining ban was overturned
Show Text
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
6 April 2009
Mr. Adams,
This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member M. Seminario to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
I do not have a copy of the memo that was attached to the enclosed notification of disapproval, but I assume it is the letter from Scott Kernan from 2005, which has been superseded by the list cited above. Therefore, I am requesting that the Under Lock & Key and subsequent mail from MIM Distributors be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX and any other prisoners being held at CSATF. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal.
Thank you for your time,
04/29/2009
Mailroom Sargeant acknowledges ban was overturned, but still banning MIM? Download Documentation
06/22/2009
Second appeal to Warden - why aren't they following rules?
Show Text
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
23 June 2009
Mr. Adams,
In April I wrote you to request that the mail room at CSATF abide by the current mail policies of the CDCR, particularly as ordered in the court settlement with Prison Legal News that was approved over 2 years ago. Following that settlement, the illegal ban on MIM Distributor?s mail in California was rescinded.
In response to my April letter, C. Pugliese, Mailroom Sergeant acknowledged that the ban was overturned and that mail from MIM Distributors must be reviewed according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Yet, the mail in question was neither deemed to violate the CCR, nor was it forwarded to its intended recipient (XXXXXX XXXXXX) to our knowledge.
In addition, we have continued to receive notifications from people held at CSATF that their mail is being censored ?per memorandum from Division of Adult Institutions, ban of Maoist International Movement Publications.?
As of last month, CSATF is the only facility in California that is still treating the 2005 memo as current policy that we have documented. Can you please advise me as to why the mailroom staff are not following the rules that the mailroom sergeant acknowledges that it should be following?
Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
22 August 2009
Mr. Jacquez,
Over the last year I have written a number of letters to yourself and Mr K. Brandon, Correctional Captain regarding the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Pelican Bay SP. I currently have a stack of mail on my desk, of various contents, all unopened and returned from PBSP stating ?Contents unacceptable at Pelican Bay.? I will not rewrite the points I have already made in my previous letters. However, I am writing to document the situation and once again request that you get your staff to respect the legal rights of MIM Distributors to communicate with prisoners at PBSP.
I welcome any correspondence you may have if you are interested in addressing this issue.
Alfred Bigelow, Warden
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, Utah 84634
04 April 2009
Warden Alfred Bigelow,
This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility marked ?Refused.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was refused to the following prisoners:
1
2
3
4
Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?refused? from Central Utah Correctional Facility? Enclosed is one of the envelopes for your reference.
Thank you for your attention,
MIM(Prisons)
CC: All affected parties.
04/04/2009
Letter to Director asking for Explanation
Show Text
Lowell Clark, Director
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, Utah 84634
04 April 2009
Director Lowell Clark,
This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility marked ?Refused.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was refused to the following prisoners:
1
2
3
4
Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?refused? from Central Utah Correctional Facility? Enclosed is one of the envelopes for your reference.
To Capt., It's Unconstitutional to Ban Presorted Mail
Show Text
Capt. Robert Jensen
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, Utah 84634
June 21, 2009
Capt. Robert Jensen,
In your April 15, 2009 letter to MIM(Prisons) regarding censorship of their publication "Under Lock & Key," you said that the publication was censored because it was sent Presorted Standard, and that the prisoners who were intended to receive it (XXX and XXX) did not have a subscription to the newsletter.
Please refer to the following case law to see how your policies have failed to comply with U.S. law:
?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).
"Under the test laid out in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987), the DOC?s
ban on non-subscription bulk mail and catalogs is not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest and is therefore unconstitutional." Prison Legal News v. Lehman 397 5.30 692 (9th Cir. 2005)
We appreciate your immediate removal of this policy at Central Utah Correctional Facility, as well as notification to the prisoners affected (see above) and MIM(Prisons) about your final decision, or any further questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration.
In Struggle,
MIM(Prisons)
08/18/2009
Warden Explains that Prisoners just need to register their subscriptions Download Documentation
We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).
Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.
Linda Hollman, Director of Education
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050
16 August, 2009
Dear Madam,
I thank you for responding to my last letter to the Committee regarding the history of censorship of mail from MIM Distributors at Cayuga Correctional Facility. Yet, after numerous letters to the Central Office and to the Cayuga Media Review office over the last year, mail is still being returned stamped ?Not on approved correspondence list,? including mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX in late July.
Both you and Martin Raftis from Cayuga assured me that MIM Distributors is not a disapproved correspondent and that mail from MIM Distributors will be reviewed for approval on a case-by-case basis. Would it be possible for mailroom staff at Cayuga to be informed of the rules and the policies that you are telling me are in place? Or should I just assume that after a year of writing that the Department has no intention of following the rules?
I sincerely hope to resolve this issue, but will not continue to waste my time.
We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).
Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.
I am, in this instance, appealing a rejection of a incoming publication for not having met a specific requirement of "Turner v. Safley, 482 US 78 (1987). Specifically - "A neutral government interest." The publication in question was rejected by mailroom staff on Aug. 9th, 09, and dated and signed by (interim) Warden Black R. Davis on Aug. 10th, 09. Title of rejected publication is entitled "Under Lock & Key". And the mailroom staff's opinion regarding the rejection is also being challenged.
First & foremost, there is no "Administrative Concern" being addressed in the rejection notice, only the mailroom staff's opinion (personal) [Administrative concern="detrimental to security, good order, discipline, etc.] This is not to suggest that the mailroom's staff's opinion has no merit, but that on its own is only descriptive of what that staff member has purported. The fact of the matter is there is no definitive material evidence to support the basis of the opinion only the mailroom staff's "cited reason" that the rejected publication "...could instigate further conflict...", which is little more than voodoo being paraded as science. What next? Bug's Bunny's feet as the barometer to gauge empirical data, or, urban legend as the predicate in categorizing observable phenomena. Simply stated: I'm neither questioning the fact of the "riot" at that complex or the few pages of the rejected publication that are in dispute in this instant action. It is the mailroom staff's opinion who rejected the publication who I take exception to.
So, having neither qualified [failed to link the "riot" and objectionable pages] the position in the rejection notice with anything more substantial than, "could instigate further conflict," as a legitimate concern, or by, establishing a definitive "Administrative concern," it is the stated objective of this remedy to reverse the decision of the rejection by allowing the publication "Under Lock & Key" to come in my personal possession.
MIM appeal - why still treating MIM as banned?
Show Text
Warden Mike McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750
24 July 2009
Mr. McDonald,
This letter is to request an explanation of the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at High Desert State Prison.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
In late November 2008, a month after this list was released, the mailroom at High Desert returned a couple of dozen unopened pieces of mail containing issue # 5 of Under Lock & Key, mailed by MIM Distributors. Since then, MIM Distributors has sent hundreds of pieces of mail to prisoners at High desert and only 3 have been confirmed received. A number of prisoners have confirmed that Under Lock & Key has not been delivered to them in that time and they have not been notified of any censorship. MIM Distributors has not received notification of this censorship either.
It is a violation of rules set forth in the CCR as well as federal case law to not notify senders/receivers when you censor their mail. It is also a violation of the CCR and case law to censor mail if it does not threaten the prison in some way. Thirdly, I am questioning the legality of the mailrooms apparent destruction of this mail without notification to either the sender or receiver.
In light of these incidents I am requesting an explanation of what is being done with mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners at High Desert, and what the justification is for such actions.
Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office
Attn: Caddo Correctional Center Mailroom Manager
505 Travis Street 7th Floor
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
August 9, 2009
Dear Mailroom Manager,
This letter is on behalf of MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA, who recently received a notification that mail they sent into Caddo Correctional Center was rejected. We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. The mail in question is their newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 9, which was sent to Mr. X. It was rejected because "No material may pose a threat to the safety, security and good order of the facility" and "No material that effects the positive rehabilitation of the inmate population."
As you may already know, there is case law that states that "[t]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards against arbitrariness or error." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800. If issue 9 of Under Lock & Key is truly a "threat to the safety, security and good order of the institution" then please send us documentation to support that claim. You can send it to the address listed below.
If, after further review of this matter you decide that your assertions of the danger of Under Lock & Key are unsupported, then we request that you notify us and Mr. X.
Appeal to Publication Review Officer about Ban
Show Text
Dwight Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
23813 E. 3200 North Road
Dwight, Il 60420
Publication Review Officer,
We recently have been notified of the "ban" of mail from MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA from being delivered to prisoners in Dwight Correctional Center. The reason cited for mail being denied is it is "disapproved publication." We have received two of these notices, and both articles were mailed to XXX.
We are confused about why a pamphlet that outlines the history of the organization MIM would be considered a "disapproved publication. Please shed some light on this issue. Please also refer to the following case law in review of this supposed "ban" on mail from MIM Distributors.
?First, the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Such interests include security, order, and rehabilitation. Second, the challenged action must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of that interest." Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777, 784 (7th Cir. 2006) referring to standards set in Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800.
Also, we would like to notify you that we have been dealing with the same censorship issue at Menard Correctional Center. Recently they have overturned the ban and are now reviewing our mail on a case-by-case basis. This means that we have been getting a lot more mail into Menard, which seems to imply that a complete ban of MIM literature is "greater than necessary or essential to the protection" of prison interests.
Please send us more documentation regarding the censorship of MIM Distributors mail. What policies is this abiding by? What is on this list of "banned" mail? Is it all mail from MIM Distributors, or just some literature?
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1025.jpg){kind=link}