MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Mailroom Review
SCI Rockview
Box A
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0820
November 15, 2009
Mailroom Review Staff,
This letter is concerning a publication sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA in August 2009 to two people in your custody: XXX and YYY. The publication was an introduction to the organization MIM(Prisons) and it was returned with "Contraband IPRC Refused A-5" written on the envelope.
What does this mean, for the document to be "IPRC Refused A-5?" We would appreciate it if you would shed some light on this issue, of what rules MIM Distributors is supposedly breaking, and specifically what it is about this publication that is contraband.
Additionally, we would like to appeal this denial and ask for an independent review of the decision. In all our experience with prison bureaucracy and legal issues, we find it hard to believe that there is a legitimate DOC rule that this publication could violate. Upon reconsideration, we ask that you allow this publication to be delivered to prisoners XXX and YYY.
Presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or the safety of any person.[Download Documentation]
Duffie Harrison, Warden
Franklin CI
1760 Highway 67 North
Carrabelle, FL 32322
11/1/2009
Warden Harrison,
I see that you received the letter sent recently by XXX YYY and that the copy sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX was deemed to be a "threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives" of the department. Mail Room employee M. Page recently returned three different pieces of mail to MIM Distributors sent to Mr. XXXXXX with this reasoning.
Can you please explain how a copy of the letter sent to you requesting a review of censorship and advice on handling such censorship including case law is a threat to the department? Additionally, a letter explaining one of MIM's educational programs and a second letter containing a set of study questions for this program were returned for being a threat to security.
I hope that upon review of these incidents you will agree that these materials pose absolutely no threat to anyone. Either way, I am requesting a response explaining the department's decision in the above mentioned incidents.
page 11 violate guideline IIE of Directive 4572 as they allege that an inmate at a New York State Correctional Facility was being mistreated by New York State Department of Correction Staff. It is the opinion of the Media Review Committee that this article, if introduced into a correctional setting, could incite disobedience toward correctional personnel.
10/05/2009
Prisoner appealed to Central Office Media Review
10/09/2009
prisoner appeal denied
10/19/2009
Appeal to Central Office Media Review
Show Text
Central Office Media Review Committee
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050
19 October, 2009
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is regarding a history of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to readers being held in Clinton Correctional Facility.
The most recent incident at Clinton was the censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue #10. Mr. XXXXXX F. XXXXXX reported to us that he received a notice that his copy was censored because of an article on page 11 about brutality by staff at Clinton. This brutality has been documented and corroborated by a number of people who were witnesses of these incidents, and as Mr. XXXXXX can attest without even having read the article, the violence continues.
The article in question calls for ?peace and solidarity?, yet it is deemed a threat because it reports on incidents that occurred. We can cite numerous court cases where it has been upheld that prison staff may not censor publications because they are critical of staff or because they encourage legal and legitimate recourse be taken by prisoners who are abused.
We are requesting that Under Lock & Key 10 be allowed to reach its intended recipients and that staff at Clinton be investigated for inciting disobedience and disorder by regularly brutalizing the people held there.
We hope you will take the time to address these very important matters,
Deputy Director
Division of Operations
Virginia Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261
August 29, 2009
Director,
This week we received your letter regarding the censorship of mail that MIM Distributors has attempted to send to prisoner X and prisoner Y. The pieces of denied mail are MIM Theory, Winter 1993, #4 and an article "Maoism Around Us," respectively. Both pieces of literature in question were censored based on VDOC mailroom policy 803.2 criteria #7 & 12.
We are aware of the specifics of policy 803.2, including criteria #7 & #12. However, in the reason you provided for this censorship, you failed to give any substantial, actual reason for how these publications violate VDOC policy.
This letter is to ask for an independent review of this decision. We request that you also include specific examples from the publications in question to demonstrate how they violate policy 803.2 criteria #7 & #12.
Please excuse the tardiness of this request. Unfortunately it was impossible for us to request an independent review within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the disapproval, July 27, because the letter wasn't postmarked until August 11, and didn't arrive in our mailbox until well after the 15 day mark.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sent materials for review and requested general review of mail handling
Show Text
John M. Jabe, Deputy Director
Virginia Dept of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963
19 October 2009
Mr. Jabe,
Enclosed are the materials you requested for independent review as per the enclosed letter. Please note, that these are just two examples of literature that has been censored at Red Onion over the last couple years. As far as we know, none of our subscribers have received a copy of our newsletter Under Lock & Key since 2008 despite being issued approvals for subscriptions by the administration there. Generally, the material is returned to us with no explanation given, so we appreciate you taking the time to review these materials. However, we are not so much concerned about these two pieces in particular, but the handling of our mail at Red Onion in general.
We look forward to your response and hope to resolve the problems we have been having with getting mail to its intended recipients.
Deputy Director
Division of Operations
Virginia Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261
August 29, 2009
Director,
This week we received your letter regarding the censorship of mail that MIM Distributors has attempted to send to prisoner X and prisoner Y. The pieces of denied mail are MIM Theory, Winter 1993, #4 and an article "Maoism Around Us," respectively. Both pieces of literature in question were censored based on VDOC mailroom policy 803.2 criteria #7 & 12.
We are aware of the specifics of policy 803.2, including criteria #7 & #12. However, in the reason you provided for this censorship, you failed to give any substantial, actual reason for how these publications violate VDOC policy.
This letter is to ask for an independent review of this decision. We request that you also include specific examples from the publications in question to demonstrate how they violate policy 803.2 criteria #7 & #12.
Please excuse the tardiness of this request. Unfortunately it was impossible for us to request an independent review within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the disapproval, July 27, because the letter wasn't postmarked until August 11, and didn't arrive in our mailbox until well after the 15 day mark.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sent materials for review and requested general review of mail handling
Show Text
John M. Jabe, Deputy Director
Virginia Dept of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963
19 October 2009
Mr. Jabe,
Enclosed are the materials you requested for independent review as per the enclosed letter. Please note, that these are just two examples of literature that has been censored at Red Onion over the last couple years. As far as we know, none of our subscribers have received a copy of our newsletter Under Lock & Key since 2008 despite being issued approvals for subscriptions by the administration there. Generally, the material is returned to us with no explanation given, so we appreciate you taking the time to review these materials. However, we are not so much concerned about these two pieces in particular, but the handling of our mail at Red Onion in general.
We look forward to your response and hope to resolve the problems we have been having with getting mail to its intended recipients.
Roy W. Cherry, Superintendent
Hampton Roads Regional Jail
2960 Elmhurst Lane
Portsmouth, VA 23701
October 13, 2009
Superintendent Cherry,
This letter is to follow up to a letter that was sent to you on April 22, 2009 regarding a complete ban on all mail sent from MIM Distributors or MIM(Prisons) into Hampton Roads Regional Jail. We have been attempting to communicate with your employees to remedy this issue since January of 2008 to no avail, with no response.
MIM(Prisons) is the publisher of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key. The September/October 2009, issue 10 of this newsletter was denied from all prisoners at HRRJ, including X, Y, and Z. Actually, Under Lock & Key has not been allowed in HRRJ since the September 2008 issue #4.
The mail was returned to us with "Unauthorized Publication" written on the envelope. What steps should MIM Distributors take to authorize the newsletter Under Lock & Key as per HRRJ mail rules?
Mailroom Supervisor
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301
October 13, 2009
Dear Mailroom Supervisor,
This letter is in reference to mail that was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA to prisoners X, Y, and Z. The item in question was the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 10 Sept./Oct. 2009. It is published and distributed by MIM Distributors.
The newsletter was returned to MIM unopened with nothing written on the envelope to indicate why it was denied delivery to these prisoners mentioned above.
Why was this newsletter returned to MIM Distributors? We appreciate your time and consideration.
Otherwise poses a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or the safety of any person[Download Documentation]
Duffie Harrison, Warden
Franklin CI
1760 Highway 67 North
Carrabelle, Florida 32322
October 13, 2009
Warden Harrison,
This letter is in regards to a letter that was denied deliver to prisoner X at your facility. The letter was an introduction to the organization MIM(Prisons). The reason cited for the denial of this letter to Mr. X was that it "Otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person." We believe that mailroom clerk S. Bryan made an error in marking this material as unauthorized, and we are requesting an independent review of their mistake.
Robert Presley Detention Center
Captain Dave Nordstrom
4000 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
October 13, 2009
Captain Nordstrom:
This letter is in reference to the censorship of all mail from MIM Distributors to prisoner XXXX, who is held at your facility. This complete censorship started in August 2009 and continues into the present. The mail in question is an informational letter about the organization MIM(Prisons), a pamphlet titled What is MIM?, a study course for the pamphlet What is MIM?, and issue 10 of MIM(Prisons)' newsletter titled Under Lock & Key.
The reason given for most of these returns has been simply "contents not allowed." What about the contents is not allowed? Most recently a piece of mail was returned with "no staples" written on the envelope. As you may know, a limit on a prisoner's constitutional right to freedom of association must be related to a valid threat. I doubt that RPDC's ban on staples would satisfy the U.S. court's requirements as listed below:
"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 request from you: (1) a list of mail rules for Robert Presley Detention Center, (2) an independent review of these errors made by your mailroom staff, and (3) for the illegitimate ban on correspondence between MIM(Prisons) and Mr. XXXX to cease. We appreciate your consideration and cooperation.
Blake R. Davis, Interim Warden
United States Penitentiary
Administrative Maximum
P.O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226-8500
September 24, 2009
Mr. Davis,
This letter is to appeal the denial of MIM Distributors' publication Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009) to prisoner XXX. The reason cited was because we reported on the brutal stabbing of a prisoner by FBOP staff, that happened to take place during a riot at FCC Coleman. Your letter stated that "The Warden may reject a publication if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it may facilitate criminal activity."
In your letter you seemed to imply that reporting on a riot is similar to advocating for one, or instructing people how to start one. However, if you read the"What is MIM(Prisons)?" information on page 2, you would have read that "MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time," which is far from a statement advocating or pushing for a riot. In fact, it is a statement that would discourage prisoners from engaging in all violent activities.
The New York Times, as well as every other legitimate newspaper, reports on violent activities every single day. Does your mailroom staff take the time to peruse these publications, and deny the ones that have the word "riot" in a headline, while also disregarding the content of the article?
Or perhaps why you illogically targeted Under Lock & Key for denial is because this article exposed the blatant disregard for human life of the FBOP staff, of which you are a part. You may be interested in researching Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F. Supp. 2d 964 (W.D. Wis., 2008), in which it states that "An 'attempt to immunize oneself from public scrutiny is not a legitimate penological interest' and 'criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion.'"
We ask that you permit XXX to receive Under Lock & Key issue 9, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
MIM(Prisons)
10/09/2009
Warden upholds censorship on review - "may lead to use of physical violence" Download Documentation
Dawn Grounds, Warden
Hughes Unit
Rt 2 Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597-0001
April 6, 2009
Warden Grounds,
This is a follow-up letter to the ones we sent you on January 19, 2009 as well as October 2008 asking why you are censoring mail from MIM Distributors, to which you have sent no response. The issue is that none of the prisoners we are in contact with at Hughes Unit have confirmed receipt of our newsletter Under Lock & Key since September 2008, and we have reason to believe it is because they are being censored. In addition to our newsletters, personal letters from MIM have been censored by your facility.
Of the 20-some-odd pieces of mail we have sent into Hughes Unit, we have only received a handful of it returned to us. When it is returned, there is no information on the envelope that indicates why it was returned. We also believe that the prisoners are not being notified of this mail denial.
Why is mail from MIM Distributors being censored? The actions your facility is taking are completely illegal, and we advise you to investigate the matter as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration,
MIM(Prisons)
CC: All affected parties
04/06/2009
Letter to Regional Director
Show Text
Gilbert Campuzano, Regional Director
4616 W. Howard Ln Suite 200
Austin, TX 78728
April 6, 2009
Director Campuzano,
This is a follow-up letter to the ones we sent to Warden Dawn Grounds of Hughes Unit on January 19, 2009 as well as October 2008 asking why mail from MIM Distributors is being censored, to which they have sent no response. The issue is that none of the prisoners we are in contact with at Hughes Unit have confirmed receipt of our newsletter Under Lock & Key since September 2008, and we have reason to believe it is because they are being censored. In addition to our newsletters, personal letters from MIM have been censored by this facility under your supervision.
Of the 20-some-odd pieces of mail we have sent into Hughes Unit, we have only received a handful of them returned to us. When it is returned, there is no information on the envelope that indicates why it was returned. We also believe that the prisoners are not being notified of this mail denial.
Why is mail from MIM Distributors being censored? The actions your facility is taking are completely illegal, and we advise you to investigate the matter as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration,
MIM(Prisons)
CC: All affected parties
04/06/2009
Letter to Ombudsman Coordinator (TDCJ Administrative Review)
Show Text
This letter is regarding an issue that is happening at Hughes Unit in Gatesville, TX. All newsletters from MIM Distributors are being denied at Hughes with only occasional notification to MIM Distributors or the prisoners. Also, we write to inquire why the newsletters are being censored. The name of the newsletter in question is Under Lock & Key.
In addition to the newsletter being censored, we have only received confirmation that a few of our personal letters have reached our prisoner contacts and we have reason to believe that personal mail sent from MIM Distributors is also being censored.
Attached to this letter is a similar letter that was sent to Warden Dawn Grounds and Director Gilbert Campuzano. We have sent Warden Grounds two letters related to this issue in the past, but have received no response. We ask that you investigate this illegal activity and get back to us with a reason and remedy as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
MIM(Prisons)
Gilbert Campuzano, Regional Director
Hughes Unit
Rt 2 Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597-0001
April 6, 2009
Director Campuzano,
This is a follow-up letter to the ones we sent to Warden Dawn Grounds of Hughes Unit on January 19, 2009 as well as October 2008 asking why mail from MIM Distributors is being censored, to which they have sent no response. The issue is that none of the prisoners we are in contact with at Hughes Unit have confirmed receipt of our newsletter Under Lock & Key since September 2008, and we have reason to believe it is because they are being censored. In addition to our newsletters, personal letters from MIM have been censored by this facility under your supervision.
Of the 20-some-odd pieces of mail we have sent into Hughes Unit, we have only received a handful of them returned to us. When it is returned, there is no information on the envelope that indicates why it was returned. We also believe that the prisoners are not being notified of this mail denial.
Why is mail from MIM Distributors being censored? The actions your facility is taking are completely illegal, and we advise you to investigate the matter as soon as possible.
To Ombudsman Coordinator, further inquiry into censorship
Show Text
MSCP
Attn: Jane M. Cockerham
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
June 21, 2009
Dear Ms. Cockerham,
We received your letter from April 22, 2009 (letter no. 9-00-1195) in regards to your investigation of censorship of MIM(Prisons)'s newsletter titled Under Lock & Key from several prisoners at Hughes Unit. In this letter you asserted that Under Lock & Key issue 6 was censored at Hughes because it "would jeopardize the safe operation of the facility." Thank you for specifying the concerns in that matter, as the original evaluation was not clear.
However, I am still confused about why this newsletter is being censored. Which parts/pages/excerpts of the newsletter are a threat to the "safe operation" of the facility? Based on prisoner testimony, when they are studying with MIM(Prisons), they have an overwhelming inclination toward nonviolence. Of which policy is ULK 6 in violation?
In addition, please refer to the following case law when reviewing this matter more in-depth.
?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).
"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, in your letter you ensured that prisoners receive a notification when their mail is censored. It would be greatly appreciated if you could ensure that your staff is following this law, as laid out in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, because I guarantee that prisoners who we are in contact with in various Texas prisons, including Hughes Unit, are not receiving notifications that their mail is being censored.
We received your letter dated July 13, 2009 regarding the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 6, from MIM Distributors. We appreciate that you looked further into the matter and gave a clear description of why the publication was censored.
However, although you claim that it isn't in TDCJ policies and procedures to notify prisoners when their mail is being censored, I believe that the case law set forth in Procunier v. Martinez would cause a court to disagree. See the excerpt below for more information.
"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
So it seems that the TDCJ policies and procedures should be reconsidered and rewritten to reflect this U.S. law. Although the MSCP notifies the prison mailroom staff of the censorship, you are required to also notify the author (us) and the supposed recipient (the prisoner).
We hope that in the future we won't experience this problem with the functionality and legal noncompliance of the MSCP and TDCJ.
We received your response to Ms. Clarke from July 31 regarding rules on notification of censorship, however, it was not clear to us. You state that prisoners need not be notified of censored mail but that both the prisoner and the sender of mail are to receive written notice of a disapproval with a statement of reason. Is there a difference between "censorship" and "disapproval" here? Or is the difference between "mail" and "publication or correspondence"?
Could you send us a copy of the relevant Board Polices, including 03.91? Perhaps that would clear up our confusion.
Thank you for your assistance,
09/09/2009
Response clarifying that they must notify prisoners of "disapproval" not "censorship/inspection" Download Documentation
In your letter to us dated September 9, 2009, you said that you enclosed a copy of Board Policy 03.91. Actually, the only item in the envelope was your letter. Could you please send a copy of Board Policy 03.91 and any other policies or rules that you think might be relevant? It would be greatly appreciated.
We appreciate your clarification of the mailroom's supposed practice regarding notification of mail denial. Somewhere in this correspondence it seemed to you that we were asking the mailroom to notify prisoners whenever they receive any mail. This, of course, would be unnecessary, as the delivery of the mail would be notification in itself. We only ask that the mailroom staff notify prisoners when their mail is being denied, where previously they weren't.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c1002.jpg){kind=link}