MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Contains prominent or prevalent advertising for three-way calling services, pen pal services, or the purchase of products or services with postage stamps.
Depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of hysical violence or group disruption or it facilitates organizational activity without approval of the chief Administrative Officer.
Middle River Regional Jail
Office of the Superintendent
350 Technology Drive
PO Box 2744
Staunton, VA 24402
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key January/February 2018 & March/April Issues
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been advised that the two issues of Under Lock & Key, referenced above, have been censored by your facility. You have failed to provide notice to us as the sender/publisher. Further, the notice you have provided to Mr. XXXXXX is inadequate as a matter of law. Your facility is neither a state correctional facility nor an institution governed by the rules and regulations of the Virginia Department of Corrections, therefore you must make an individualized determination as to each publication based on your policies, pursuant to a clear and convincing standard, as required by the Virginia Administrative Code (the “Code”).
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).
As such, we object to your failure to provide notice to us, the sender/publisher, of the censorship and opportunity to appeal as required by law. Please provide a notice of censorship which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. We direct your attention to § 630 of the Code.
We further note that the standard you cite, 6VAC15-4D-650, provides the sender “shall be allowed the opportunity to appeal the seizure to the facility administrator or a designee empowered to reverse seizure.” Courts in the United States have long held a First Amendment right exists to protect the right of correspondence with prisoners. As previously noted a publisher or distributor must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any censorship. The law is clear, you are required to notify the sender/publisher of any censorship, so they may have the opportunity to appeal such censorship. Any failure to act within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this letter may result in appropriate legal action being taken against the Middle River Regional Jail.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
06/05/2018
Operations Specialist will review denial if we re-send the ULKs denied
Middle River Regional Jail
Office of the Superintendent
350 Technology Drive
PO Box 2744
Staunton, VA 24402
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key January/February 2018 & March/April Issues
Inmate XX
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been advised that the two issues of Under Lock & Key, referenced above, have been censored by your facility. You have failed to provide notice to us as the sender/publisher. Further, the notice you have provided to Mr. XXXXXX is inadequate as a matter of law. Your facility is neither a state correctional facility nor an institution governed by the rules and regulations of the Virginia Department of Corrections, therefore you must make an individualized determination as to each publication based on your policies, pursuant to a clear and convincing standard, as required by the Virginia Administrative Code (the “Code”).
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).
As such, we object to your failure to provide notice to us, the sender/publisher, of the censorship and opportunity to appeal as required by law. Please provide a notice of censorship which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. We direct your attention to § 630 of the Code.
We further note that the standard you cite, 6VAC15-4D-650, provides the sender “shall be allowed the opportunity to appeal the seizure to the facility administrator or a designee empowered to reverse seizure.” Courts in the United States have long held a First Amendment right exists to protect the right of correspondence with prisoners. As previously noted a publisher or distributor must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any censorship. The law is clear, you are required to notify the sender/publisher of any censorship, so they may have the opportunity to appeal such censorship. Any failure to act within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this letter may result in appropriate legal action being taken against the Middle River Regional Jail.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
06/05/2018
Operations specialist will consider appeal if we re-send ULKs that were censored
Colorado Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 6000
Sterling, CO 80751-6000
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
[email protected] Power and Struggle for Aztlan
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the [email protected] Power and Struggle for Aztlan. The notice states that the publication was rejected because “talks about the rise and struggles for power of the [email protected] Nation within the prison system.” However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. The notice merely states that “5+” pages are objectionable. It is unclear what specific 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).
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. The Notice to Publisher is clear that the censoring official must “identify the page number(s).” You must provide the information which is objectionable with specific references to page numbers within fifteen (15) days.
The Notice to Publisher was dated May 8, 2018. A review of our records show that we sent only one copy of the book to a prisoner in the Colorado Department of Corrections on August 14, 2017. We ask that you investigate the delay in providing notice of censorship.
Further, we do not believe any material in the book is objectionable based on Colorado Department of Corrections policies or regulations. Therefore, we require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue March/April 2018 Issue 61
SCI Pine Grove
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your April 19, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content relates to “bondage of little girl” on page four of ULK. A review of page four is clear that no graphical depiction exists in any form. Page four does reference an article by Family Fun magazine’s May 2017 issue as containing an advertisement “show[ing] a boy duck-taping a prepubescent girl to a garage wall.” This is the only reference and it is based on publication in a magazine which was not censored by PADOC. This reference is related to discussion and news reporting that is both meaningful and noteworthy. It is not in violation of any PADOC policy or standard. As such censorship based on this factor is unconstitutional and subject the PADOC to legal action.
The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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).
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
05/23/2018
prison reports that publication was reviewed and permitted into all facilities Download Documentation
“sex offenders vs. Anti-people sex crimes. Whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing”This was overturned
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue March/April 2018 Issue 61
SCI Rockview
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your second April 19, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content relates to pages 1-24 as “sex offenders vs. Anti-people sex crimes. Whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing” (sic). This reference is related to discussion and news reporting that is both meaningful and noteworthy. It is not in violation of any PADOC policy or standard. As such censorship based on this factor is unconstitutional and subjects the PADOC to legal action.
The issue takes a stance that any crime against people is wrong and specifically references drug dealing and assault (p. 5). Contrary to the censor’s rendition of the content. The issue further talks at length about rehabilitation to prevent re-offending in the future. All content which is clearly no censorable. The discussion of revolution is on a philosophical level and nowhere in the issue is there any call for violence or mayhem which would impact the operations of a correctional facility.
Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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).
sex offenders vs. anti-people sex crimes. whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing[Download Documentation]
Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key March/April 2018 Issue 61
To Whom It May Concern: EDIT
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 it disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership. There are two 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.
Indiana Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
302 West Washington St E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key March/April 2018 Issue 61
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been notified the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) has been censored by the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC). The notice was received from a prisoner and no notice has been received from IDOC. Mr. XXXXXX has indicated the issue of ULK was censored based on inmate to inmate correspondence. IDOC policy 02-01-103 (V) is clear on its face that the publication does not constitute offender to offender correspondence.
Federal case law is clear, the publisher must be notified by prison authorities of any censorship of publications and must be given a meaningful to appeal the censorship. It is clear IDOC policy 02-01-103 provides no such option and is unconstitutional on its face.
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).
We require the IDOC to provide notice of censorship, with reference to the specific content which is allegedly objectionable within fifteen (15) days of this letter. Failure to do so may result in litigation against the IDOC.
In the alternative, the decision to censor the issue referenced above may be vacated and delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.
Create a danger within the context of the correctional facility pages 1-24. Sex offenders vs. anti people sex crimes, whole newsletter, as well as obscene material
