MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Front page: Prison is War, Page 5-The Anti-Gang Campaign, Page 6-The Murder of Tyre Nichols - Do you Approve?, Page 6- Incarcerated People are suffering and dying in prison during the current record heat wave, Page 8- September 9th Recognized from Florida
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
12/27/2023
Mailroom Supervisor says it is policy that newspapers must go to Security Processing Center Download Documentation
(15)(p)Otherwise poses a threat to security... Front page: Prison is War, Page 5- The Anti-Gang Campaign, Page 6- The Murder of Tyre Nichols - Do you Approve?, Page 6 - Incarcerated People are suffering and dying in prison during heat wave, Page 8- Sept 9
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 83
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated November 29, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under section (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. This section condones the prohibition of material which “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of this description can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have
We request the decision to withhold issue 83 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated November 11, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The only reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG FRONT PAGE BLACK PANTHERS”. We would like to point out that the Black Panthers are not mentioned anywhere, in writing or in illustration, within the publication aside from a brief reference to the Black Panther Party’s Breakfast for Schoolchildren program. We emphatically assert that this does not meet the standards required to violate Mr. XXXXXX’s First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
ON June 20 2023 I receive notice of confiscated newspaper from the mailroom Chambers on state form 11984 which came from the mailroom No. 81, Spring 2023 was confiscated and also denied on "STG" front page New Afrika. Chambers then sent my newspaper to I.I. Chambers just says "STG" + then confiscated my newspaper. Chambers has a problem (a personal problem) with MIM Distributors. If this newspaper was considered propaganda to the U.S. Postal Service tehy would not allow MIM the privilege to use the U.S. Postal system without some type of penalties imposed on MIM. Chambers continues to censor MIM publications and also I.I.
[State the relieve that you are seeking ]
1. for Chambers and I.I. to release this publication to me
2. for Chambers and I.I. to stop censoring MIM publications
3. No retaliation from Chambers and I.I. for filing this grievance
4. for Chambers to notify MIM that their publication was confiscated so MIM can appeal
5. for any and all just proper relief
10/20/2023
Case opened with Grievance Manager
12/04/2023
Grievance Manager upholds decision to censor
Show Text
Your grievance appeal and all attached documents have been reviewed. I've reviewed online issues of the newspaper and while I found no STG related information I did not that it has separatist philosophy and for that reason only I concur with the Facility level responses. Grievance Appeal Denied. Mr. I. Randolph is the Final Reviewing Authority Per Offender Grievance Process 00 02 301.
