MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Contains priminent or prevalent advertising for three-way calling services, pen pal services, or the purchase of products or services with postage stamps
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Introductory Study Group Invitation (December 2017)
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Introductory Study Group Invitation (hereinafter, “Invitation”) addressed to the above referenced prisoner. The notice states that the publication is being rejected because it “[c]ontains prominent or prevalent advertising for three-way calling services, pen pal services, or the purchase of products or services with postage stamps.” The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit. The Invitation contains no advertisements and make one reference to supporting the study guide by make a voluntary payment of $10. The Invitation further states “If your facility rules allow you to send stamps…” (emphasis added). No demand is made for payment, in fact the next paragraph provides information to receive the study materials without payment.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
The “stamp program” referenced includes the following language in its entirety on page 1 of the Invitation:
“We work to make our study groups as self-sufficient as possible. To do this we are asking you to pay for the materials that we will be reading. The minimum cost of this two level intro study course is $10 for the reading and postage. If your facility rules allow you to send stamps, that is best. If you can only send a check or money order, let us know and we will send you further instructions for how to do that.
If you cannot afford to pay by money or stamps, we certainly won’t leave you out...”
F.A.C. 33-501.401 (l) states (emphasis added):
(l) 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.
1. Three-way calling services;
2. Pen pal services;
3. The purchase of products or services with postage stamps; or
4. Conducting a business or profession while incarcerated.
(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.
Further, the F.A.C. cited requires the advertisement to be the focus of the publication and/or prominent or prevalent throughout the publication. Clearly it is neither the focus of nor prevalent. It also is not a prominent feature of the publication as it is on page 1 in normal font within the body of a paragraph.
It is clear the censorship based on a “stamp program” is arbitrary and capricious. It is also a clear misapplication of the Florida Administrative Code on its face.
The censorship of the Invitation, based on the reasons set forth in the Notice, constitute a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. These reasons are clearly not applicable under any reasoned interpretation of the Code and cannot have been made in a good faith reliance on any such application.
I also bring to your attention a recent decision by the FLDOC which clearly indicates such a statement is not a violation of the “stamp policy” and reversed a previous censorship decision as noted in a letter dated February 26, 2018. It is clear the person reviewing the Invitation does not have sufficient training or knowledge of the FLDOC policies. This letter serves to again put you on notice of such violations by FLDOC employees. A failure to address such employee malfeasance may subject you to any and all legal remedies at our disposal.
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand the Invitation be delivered forthwith to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.
notification of publication seizure/censorship (postmarked 3/5/2018) Download Documentation
01/16/2018
MIM(Prisons) protests failure to delivery multiple publications in KS
Show Text
January 16, 2018
Kansas Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
714 SW Jackson, Suite 300
Topeka, KS 66603
Re: Failure to Deliver Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of information that the Hutchinson Correctional Facility is failing to deliver to the addressee or provide notice of censorship of at least eight (8) publications mailed from October 2017 through December 2017. As the distributor of these publications, we have also not received notice of censorship.
Failure to deliver the properly posted and addressed publications or provide requisite notice of censorship violates Kansas Administrative Regulations, federal Postal laws and our Constitutional rights. This letter serves as our notice of the Kansas Department of Corrections as to direct and ongoing violations regarding these failures to deliver or provide notice of censorship for publications mailed to the facility.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Until such time as the Kansas Department of Corrections provides the constitutionally mandated information to provide adequate notice of the specific reasons for censorship or delivers the publications to the addressees, a violation of our constitutional rights under the First Amendment will continue.
Withheld 6.9 ounces of printed material, content focuses on organizing communist revolution/Asst. stapled topics promote unrest. Note: A book and 3 other publications sent to the pro/for review and her decision. IMPP 12-134. All items received, in the same envelop.
02/18/2018
MIM(Prisons) responds to administration request for more information
Show Text
February 18, 2018
Kansas Department of Corrections
Mr. Doug Burris
Correctional Manager
Office of the Secretary
714 SW Jackson, Suite 300
Topeka, KS 66603
Re: Failure to Deliver Publications
Mr. Burris:
Thank you for your recent reply to our concerns about censorship at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility without notice being provided to us as the publisher and distributor of the publications.
The publications in questions were addressed to XXX
The following is a list of publications with mailing dates sent to Mr. X.
12/12/2017 Organization Means Commitment essay
12/12/2017 Organizational Structure study pack
12/12/2017 The New Indians
12/12/2017 Liberation or Gangsterism: Freedom or Slavery Pt. I & II
12/12/2017 Let's "Gang-Up" On Oppression: Youth Organizations and the
Struggle for Power in Oppressed Communities
12/12/2017 Who Is Lumpen in the United $tates? pamphlet
12/11/2017 Under Lock & Key 59 (Nov 2017)
10/09/2017 Under Lock & Key 58 (Sept 2017)
Please provide information as to the status of each of these publications. If any of these publications have been subject to censorship, please provide adequate notice so that we may formulate an appeal.
MIM(Prisons) responds to notice of censorship
Show Text
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “the content of this newsletter poses a threat to the safety and security of correctional facilities. Articles about drug trade throughout.” However, there is no reference to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
04/12/2018
Secretary of Corrections Dessignee rules against MIM(Prisons) appeal Download Documentation
04/17/2018
MIM(Prisons) responds to March 19 risk management letter
Show Text
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
April 16, 2018
Kansas Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
714 SW Jackson, Suite 300
Topeka, KS 66603
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key September/October 2017 Issue 59
Under Lock & Key November/December 2017 Issue 59
Who is Lumpen?
Loose Printed Material – Study Packet
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issues of Under Lock & Key (ULK. The notice states that ULK 59 was rejected because “the content of this newsletter poses a threat to the safety and security of correctional facilities. Articles about drug trade throughout.” However, there is no reference to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable. There are no references to specific content for any of the remaining publications and loose material which was censored.
Failure to deliver the properly posted and addressed publications or provide requisite notice of censorship violates Kansas Admisntrative Regulations, federal Postal laws and our Constitutional rights. This letter serves as our notice of the Kansas Department of Corrections as to direct and ongoing violations regarding these failures to deliver or provide notice of censorship for publications mailed to the facility.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Until such time as the Kansas Department of Corrections provides the constitutionally mandated information to provide adequate notice of the specific reasons for censorship and references the exact content which is objectionable or delivers the publications to the addressees, a violation of our constitutional rights under the First Amendment will continue.
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
