MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
adjusted Notification of Disapproval for "revolutionary ideologies" Download Documentation
05/29/2009
Appeal to Correctional Captain
Show Text
K. Brandon, Correctional Captain
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
29 May 2009
Dear K. Brandon,
In late April you sent a memo signed by you on 4/21/2009 stating that 3 letters from MIM Distributors had been censored due to the statewide ban. Subsequently, a 5/4/2009 letter from you acknowledges that said ban was overturned 6 months prior. Finally, we received a new ?Stopped Mail Notification?, presumably for the same 3 pieces of mail stating that they were ?contraband? and a ?threat to penalogical interests.? The explanation reads ?CONTENT INCITES REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGIES.?
The three pieces of mail sent to the prisoner during the period in question were an introductory letter to MIM(Prisons) work with prisoners, issue 7 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key and a copy of the letter sent to the warden on 4/6/2009 by our office explaining that you were operating on an outdated department memo. So you are saying that a letter to the warden about CDCR policies is a threat to penalogical interests? The main point made in issue 7 of Under Lock & Key is that it is against the interests of prisoners to encourage violent confrontations with others when facing frustrations (the intro letter echoes this belief). ULK 7 also argues that the prevention of legal rights and avenues for redress of complaints to prisoners is a strategy to promote violence in prisons. Are these expressed ideas in ULK 7 a threat to the interests of the CDCR as you see them?
Finally, your justification for the censorship given on the notification dated on 4/15/2009, but mailed 5/13/2009 after acknowledging MIM Distributors is not banned by CDCR, assumes a role for the IGI that is threatening to Constitutional rights. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14 is clear that political ideology cannot be used to verify a written document as a ?threat to penalogical interests.?
If you cannot cite a specific action in each of the three pieces of mail in question that poses a threat then your actions are not based in U.S. law.
If, on the other hand, you see the promotion of non-violent behavior in prisons and legal action on behalf of prisoners? rights as a threat to penalogical interests, then we will take our concerns elsewhere. Either way, we will appreciate your response so that we can address our concerns through the appropriate avenues.
contains information that could be detrimental to the safety and security of the information [sic] if publication was to spread throughout institution.[Download Documentation]
T. Walser, Asst. Supt. of Custody and Operations
Polk Correctional Institution
PO Box 2500
Butner, NC 27509
28 May 2009
Asst. Supt. Walser,
We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #7 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX from MIM Distributors. You first cite D.0310( C ) as the reason. That rule states that the mail concerns sending contraband such as stamps, cash or stickers. The newsletter is mailed to thousands all over the country in the same format and I can assure you that it contained no such contraband.
The disapproval reason page also has text entered in reason D.0310(E). This text claims that ULK 7 could be a threat to safety and security if distributed. I think that upon review, if you read the content of the newsletter you will find that the whole message of ULK 7 is to promote defending human rights via legal avenues while opposing the use of violent or illegal retaliation for abuse within prisons.
It is confusing because the reason states that it ?could be detrimental to the safety and security of the information.?, perhaps this is a typo? If so what exactly is it a threat to the safety and security of? Can you cite the paragraph, article and page that could pose such risk?
The main message of ULK 7 is to promote peaceful means of dealing with conflicts and abuse within prisons, so I find it odd that the department chose to censor this publication for the reason given. If upon review you are not convinced that Mr. XXXXXX should receive ULK 7, please notify us of such decision and your reasoning behind it.
Mr. Michael Thurmer, Warden
Waupun Correctional Institution
PO Box 351
Waupun, WI 53963-0351
27 April 2009
Dear Mr. Thurmer,
Thank you for addressing my concerns from the March letter I sent regarding censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#XXXXXX). Unfortunately, we seem to be facing the same problem. Only this time, the reasoning for the censorship seems to be disagreements that Capt. Muraski has with the content of the newsletter. The captain?s problem with page 2 is regarding a factual statement about history. Then on page 10 the cite is of an article that is critical of practices carried out by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
As I pointed out in my last letter XXXXXX v. Raemisch, (W.D.W.I. 2008), re-established that it is illegal for prison administrators to censor publications because they are critical of the actions of the department they work for. Therefore, it would follow that you cannot censor materials for being critical of the practices of another state?s department.
I hope that you can once again ensure that Mr. XXXXXX receives Under Lock & Key issue 7. In addition, I request that staff that are responsible for reviewing mail coming into Waupun CI be briefed on the current laws and regulations applying to their job so that we can avoid this problem in the future.
Dawn Grounds, Warden
Hughes Unit
Rt 2 Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597-0001
19 January 2009
Warden Dawn Grounds,
In October I had written to you regarding a number of pieces of mail from MIM Distributors that were returned to sender from Hughes Unit with no reason given. Just recently, it has been brought to my attention that another stack of returned mail has come back from Hughes Unit more than a month after it was sent out. To date no reason has been given to MIM Distributors or to any of the prisoners that our office has been in contact with to explain this censorship. None of the mail has been opened, so it seems it is not based on the content of the mail, but many, if not all, of the prisoners are still being housed at Hughes Unit.
Can you please look into this and let me know what is happening with MIM?s mail that is causing it to be returned like?
Travis Trani, Warden
Limon Correctional Facility
49030 State Hwy 71
Limon, 80826
April 22, 2009
Warden Trani,
This letter is in reference to mail that MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA has sent to XXXX who is a prisoner in Limon Correctional Facility. The document was a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key. It was sent to the Reading Committee for review on February 25, 2009.
Why is this newsletter being censored? What is the status of its review? Your clarity on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
MIM(Prisons)
CC: Affected parties.
04/22/2009
Letter to Reading Committee asking why censored
Show Text
Ms. Cathie Holst, Manager
Office of Correctional Legal Services
2862 South Circle Drive, Suite 150
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4195
April 22, 2009
Ms. Holst,
This letter is to inquire about the status of a document that was sent to the Reading Committee on February 25, 2009. The document was a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key and it was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. It was censored from prisoner XXXX at Limon Correctional Facility.
Why is this newsletter being censored? What is the status of its review? Your clarity on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
6 April 2009
Mr. Jacquez,
This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member K. Brandon to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXXXX (XXXXXX).
Brandon incorrectly cites a memo from 2006 to justify rejecting any mail coming from MIM Distributors. 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 am requesting that the mail in question be released by ISU and given to Mr. XXXXXXX and that the October 18, 2008 memo be distributed to staff as required by said memo and the lawsuit that preceded it. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal that complies with current rules and laws.
Appeal to Warden explaining new ban list
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
28 February 2009
Mr. Hedgpeth,
This letter is regarding a stack of recently returned mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to people being held at SVSP. As you are probably aware, the handling of MIM?s mail by the CDCR has been an ongoing concern. MIM?s mail has been consistently returned by SVSP mailroom staff, usually unopened, for well over a year now.
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 February 2009, Under Lock & Key is still being returned with the reason ?Not on approved mailing list at SVSP, SOLEDAD, CA?? Is there another list that MIM Distributors must be on in order to get mail to people held at SVSP, in addition to not being on the centralized list of disapproved publications?
Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in SVSP.
Reply citing Oct. 2008 Disapproved List, ccing Attorney General/Legal Affairs
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
6 April 2009
Mr. Hedgpeth,
In your letter from March 20, 2009 you state that Scott Kernan had imposed a ban on MIM publications at CDCR. I am aware of the 2005 document proclaiming such a ban, but the Office of Legal Affairs appears to be giving you a different story than they are giving the U.S. District Court regarding the continued applicability of this ban.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, that I cited in my previous letter, ?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.? As I tried to explain in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
I also find it surprising that you are not aware of the October 21, 2008 memo, which also reads, ?Wardens are to ensure that this memorandum and list are distributed appropriately. This includes ensuring that they are copied, distributed, and posted at locations accessible to inmates, parolees, and employees?? As a Warden it appears to be required that you not only be aware of this memo but that you make it available to all others within the facility you oversee.
The Deputy Attorney General representing Mr. Kernan has represented the above quoted memo as being the truth on the ground within CDCR facilities. If the CDCR Legal Affairs office is still upholding the ban as you claim then perhaps the miscommunication is at a higher level. I am cc?ing the Deputy Attorney General as well as the Legal Affairs office to request their responses to this matter.
letter to Publication Review requesting explanation
Show Text
Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
22 April 2009
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is regarding an ongoing pattern of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Menard Correctional Center. It seems that this mail is being returned to sender without consideration of its contents since none of the envelopes have been opened. One returned letter was a two-sentence letter to a prisoner confirming receipt of mail, a number of other returned pieces contained a publication with the expressed purpose of reducing violence in prisons. All of the mail was stamped with ?Item Not Permitted? and a couple had ?MIM Banned? written on them.
After reviewing Section 525.230 of the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Admn. Code Sec 525.230), it seems that a number of rules were overlooked in these incidents. First, part c) explains that written notice of administrative decisions to review a publication coming into the facility will be sent to the prisoner and the publisher, no later than 30 days from the date the facility received the item. In addition, part f) states that a publication can be banned after 6 consecutive denials. We never received notices for any of these issues. I also know that at least some of the prisoners who have been denied mail from MIM Distributors have also not been notified of the censorship. We did receive the last two issues returned to us with the above mentioned stamp, but this does not explain how the literature violates any of the criteria laid out in part b). I am confident that upon review you will find that it does not. Since we were not given an opportunity to request a review before, I am doing so now. Enclosed is the most recent issue of the publication Under Lock & Key that is published by MIM Distributors.
If it is true that the publication Under Lock & Key has been banned, does said ban apply to any mail with MIM Distributor?s return address on it, such as the aforementioned letter? The definition of ?Publication? in Section 525.202 does not include letters, and 525.300 does not seem to allow for a general ban of a party from sending mail to a prison. Please clarify.
