MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260
31 May 2015
RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 43
Dear Ms. Bostic,
This letter is in response to a letter dated 5/19/15, postmarked 5/28/2015, from the Publication Review Committee Chair Fay Lassiter regarding the disapproval of issue 43 (March/April 2015) of the newsletter Under Lock & Key. I am writing to obtain an independent review of this decision.
The letter to publisher cites page 9 of the newsletter as the source of the problem, with the reason for censorship being “encourages violence and insurrection.” Ironically, the article on page 9 is about prisoners in Georgia who were peacefully refusing food in protest of violations of their First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Such peaceful actions are organized in a conscious effort to avoid any kind of violence or insurrection. It is troublesome that someone in your department felt that it was justified to violate the First Amendment rights of MIM Distributors in order to suppress information about people organizing peacefully against the violation of Constitutional rights. As a government official, the person making this decision has sworn to uphold the very Constitution that these people in Georgia are working to have upheld themselves.
In light of this obvious misuse of the words “violence” and “insurrection” I hope that you will overturn this decision to censor Under Lock & Key No. 43 in North Carolina prisons. I look forward to your response.
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
April 27, 2015
RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 42 and ULK43 at Graceville C.F.,
Dear Ms. Morrison,
This letter is in response to notifications received by Mr. XXX and Mr. YYY at Graceville CF regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 42 and 43 (Mr. YYY was only notified of the ULK43 censorship. The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered to these men.
The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable.
The ULK42 notice claims the publication "is dangerously inflammatory" and "otherwise presents a threat to the security…" and cites page 2 with "definitions of why they are and what they stand for". This is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. It also cites page 4 with an article about an incident in Oregon where a prisoner was killed by a CO. Again, news about what's going on in prisons is not sufficient reason to censor this publication. The employee who reviewed this publication (whose signature is illegible) may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.
The ULK 43 notice claims the publication violates the same Section (3) rules as ULK42 but cites only page 2 as a reason "who Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons are, what they stand for and how to join the organization." As explained above, disagreeing with the goals and theory of an organization is not sufficient reason to censor a publication according to Supreme Court precedent.
Further, on the denial forms that the prisoners received both claim that the sender was notified. For ULK it claims "date mailed to sender: 3-6-15" and for ULK43 it claims "date mailed to sender: 4-8-14" but we were never sent notification of censorship of either of these publications. The forms were only delivered to Mr XXX & Mr. YYY. As you know from previous correspondence, we have an ongoing problem with Florida prisons failing to notify us of denial of our publications. I am once again requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
I am requesting that you allow the prisoners at Graceville CI to receive issues 42 and 43 of Under Lock & Key.
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
April 27, 2015
RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 42 and ULK43 at Graceville C.F.,
Dear Ms. Morrison,
This letter is in response to notifications received by Mr. XXX and Mr. YYY at Graceville CF regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 42 and 43 (Mr. YYY was only notified of the ULK43 censorship. The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered to these men.
The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable.
The ULK42 notice claims the publication "is dangerously inflammatory" and "otherwise presents a threat to the security…" and cites page 2 with "definitions of why they are and what they stand for". This is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. It also cites page 4 with an article about an incident in Oregon where a prisoner was killed by a CO. Again, news about what's going on in prisons is not sufficient reason to censor this publication. The employee who reviewed this publication (whose signature is illegible) may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.
The ULK 43 notice claims the publication violates the same Section (3) rules as ULK42 but cites only page 2 as a reason "who Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons are, what they stand for and how to join the organization." As explained above, disagreeing with the goals and theory of an organization is not sufficient reason to censor a publication according to Supreme Court precedent.
Further, on the denial forms that the prisoners received both claim that the sender was notified. For ULK it claims "date mailed to sender: 3-6-15" and for ULK43 it claims "date mailed to sender: 4-8-14" but we were never sent notification of censorship of either of these publications. The forms were only delivered to Mr XXX & Mr. YYY. As you know from previous correspondence, we have an ongoing problem with Florida prisons failing to notify us of denial of our publications. I am once again requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
I am requesting that you allow the prisoners at Graceville CI to receive issues 42 and 43 of Under Lock & Key.
Sincerely,
05/14/2015
Literature review cmte upholds censorship (see ULK43 for copy of letter)
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
April 27, 2015
RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 42 and ULK43 at Graceville C.F.,
Dear Ms. Morrison,
This letter is in response to notifications received by Mr. XXX and Mr. YYY at Graceville CF regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 42 and 43 (Mr. YYY was only notified of the ULK43 censorship. The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered to these men.
The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable.
The ULK42 notice claims the publication "is dangerously inflammatory" and "otherwise presents a threat to the security…" and cites page 2 with "definitions of why they are and what they stand for". This is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. It also cites page 4 with an article about an incident in Oregon where a prisoner was killed by a CO. Again, news about what's going on in prisons is not sufficient reason to censor this publication. The employee who reviewed this publication (whose signature is illegible) may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.
The ULK 43 notice claims the publication violates the same Section (3) rules as ULK42 but cites only page 2 as a reason "who Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons are, what they stand for and how to join the organization." As explained above, disagreeing with the goals and theory of an organization is not sufficient reason to censor a publication according to Supreme Court precedent.
Further, on the denial forms that the prisoners received both claim that the sender was notified. For ULK it claims "date mailed to sender: 3-6-15" and for ULK43 it claims "date mailed to sender: 4-8-14" but we were never sent notification of censorship of either of these publications. The forms were only delivered to Mr XXX & Mr. YYY. As you know from previous correspondence, we have an ongoing problem with Florida prisons failing to notify us of denial of our publications. I am once again requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
I am requesting that you allow the prisoners at Graceville CI to receive issues 42 and 43 of Under Lock & Key.
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
April 27, 2015
RE: Impounding of MIM Theory 14 and What is MIM? pamphlet at Mayo Correctional Institution
Dear Ms. Morrison,
This letter is in response to a notification we recently received from Mayo Correctional Institution dated 4/17/2015 regarding the impounding of two magazines we mailed to Mr. XXX. The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the magazines delivered to Mr. XXX.
The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable.
The Mayo C.I notice cites multiple articles on several pages as justifying the denial of the "What is MIM" pamphlet because "it depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption". Below are the pages cited for this censorship and a description of their contents.
p10 "encourages hate behavior" - contains an article about why the MIM (an organization that no longer exists) did not respond to questions about details of it's organization's membership, size or personal details.
p12 "encourages group disruption" - contains a critique of organizations that want to take up armed struggle now in this country (a critique!), and a discussion of the merits of working within mass organizations for political change.
p18 "encourages hate and discriminatory behavior as well as inciteful" - contains the historical constitution of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which is a list of theoretical points about history and unity.
p23 "inciteful" - does not exist in this publication which is only 18 pages long.
We are left with the distinct impression that Mr. Jeffcoat, the Assistant Warden who signed off on this censorship, did not even bother to look at, much less read, the publication.
The notice regarding MIM Theory 14 claims that the publication is "dangerously inflammatory" and "depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption." This notification is equally embarrassing for it's lack of correspondence between the pages cited and any actual content on those pages.
Pg 73-74 "gangs" - this is not a description of content that is inadmissible, it is merely a word. In fact there is an article on those pages about gangs but it is a critique of the role of gangs in prisons which create violent conflicts behind bars and physically prevent members from leaving those organizations. What about this article is "not conducive to the rehabilitation of inmates."? Obviously having the word "gangs" is not sufficient to justify censorship.
p79-80 "dangerously inflammatory" - these pages contain a discussion of the term "political prisoner" and debate whether only those arrested for explicitly political crimes should be given this label. See the Thornburgh decision cited above for a clear repudiation of any legal standing the prison has for censoring this article.
p92-98 "Black Panther and gang related material" - here it seems, as with pages 73-74, the Assistant Warden of Mayo CI is under the mistaken impression that he can censor literature just because of the topics it addresses. This is clearly in contradiction to existing legal precedent.
p105-106 "encourages a book that instructs group disruption" - These pages have reviews of a few books:
• Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard (by Malcolm X)
• Negro in the City (by Gerald Leinwand)
• Why We Can't Wait - Still! (by Martin Luther King, Jr.)
All three are widely available academic books. None are focused on "group disruption" unless this term is used to mean anything that describes issues of human rights and historical struggles against oppression. If that is cause for censorship we presume that Mayo C.I. does not allow any history books into the institution. Clearly this is a mistaken basis for censorship.
p129 "encourages a group that provides instruction on riots" - this page as a review of the now defunct publication "Prison Connections" which used to publish information about prisons in Massachusetts. Interestingly, this review focuses on criticizing both prisoner-on-prisoner violence and violence against the prison system and discusses other organizations that agree with this critique. As the primary focus of this publication review it's hard to see how anyone who actually read this page could have found information about a group that "provides instruction on riots".
Again, as with the other magazine, we have to conclude that Mr. Jeffcoat did not actually read the publication in question.
There is nothing in these publications that meet the criteria listed for censorship of publications. It may be the case that those reviewing this publication disagreed with the perspective presented in the articles listed, but the rejection of publications that one finds disagreeable is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, which your department is bound to uphold. The reasons given for denial of these publications does not pass the standard set by Thornburgh for censoring mail to prisoners.
I am requesting that you allow Mr. XXX to receive both impounded publications.
Publication Review Committee
Stateville Correctional Center
PO Box 112
Joilet, IL 60434-0112
March 29, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
MIM Distributors mailed the following items to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center.
How to Form a Study group: sent 10/22/2014
Invitation to Join Study Group: sent 10/22/2014
Censorship guide: sent 9/15/2014
Unconfirmed mail form: sent 8/18/2014
These letters were neither returned to MIM Distributors nor received by Mr. XXX. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
As you are no doubt aware, Departmental Rule 525, Section 525,140 (d), which states: "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband." In addition, Departmental Rule 525.140 (h) states: "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of this decision." By failing to notify both Mr XXX and MIM Distributors the facility is clearly in violation of D.R. 525.140.
As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
Sincerely,
XXX, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Form Filed: SC DOC Notice to withhold incoming/outgoing correspondence and disposition of correspond
Show Text
This notice is to advise you that you have received correspondence from MIM Distributors which contained study guide for Maoist International material. This is deemed questionable and requires further review by the Correspondence Review Committee (CRC) pursuant to SCDC Policy PS-10.08 "Inmate Correspondence privileges." The Committee has 90 days... to advise you of the decision.
Scott Crews
Mayo Correctional Institution
8784 US Highway 27 West
Mayo, Florida 32066-3458
March 29, 2015
RE: Censorship of routine mail
Dear Warden Crews,
This letter is in response to an "Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt" dated 3/11/2015 addressed to MIM Distributors and signed by mail room personnel M. Engle for a package sent to Mr. XXX. It claims the content of the envelope "Otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person."
The mail in question contained several essays on the topic of historical and dialectical materialism. This subject matter is clearly not related to violence, security or safety at your facility. Therefore I am requesting that this mail be delivered to Mr. XXX (a copy of which you have on file).
If you cannot complete my request to deliver this mail then please respond to me with an explanation of what portion of the material in question you find to be a threat.
Sincerely,
04/09/2015
Assistant Warden refuses to consider MIM(Prisons) request for explanation of censorship
MIM(Prisons) protests censorship and lack of notification
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Pontiac Correctional Center
PO Box 99
Pontiac, IL 61764-0099
April 6, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
MIM Distributors mailed the following items to the above-named prisoner held at Pontiac Correctional Center:
Under Lock & Key 41 sent 12/10/2014
Under Lock & Key 27 sent 10/23/2014
Under Lock & Key 26 sent 10/23/2014
MIM Theory 5 sent 10/23/2014
MIM Theory 4 sent 10/23/2014
Tips for writing articles sent 10/21/2014
Socioeconomic survey sent 10/20/2014
These letters and publications were neither returned to MIM Distributors nor received by Mr. XXX. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
As you are no doubt aware, Departmental Rule 525, Section 525,140 (d), which states: "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband." In addition, Departmental Rule 525.140 (h) states: "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of this decision." By failing to notify both Mr Haynes and MIM Distributors the facility is clearly in violation of D.R. 525.140.
As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
Thank you for informing me that my subscription of ULK had been returned to sender. I wrote to the Mail Room Clerk here at Boyd and demanded to know not only why my mail was being censored but why was I not informed or given the chance to appeal the decision. The mail room wrote me back and told me that they send every issue of ULK for review to Huntsville and that Huntsville decides whether to send it back to me or to return it to MIM. However she claims this is not censorship, which I find both comical as well as insulting. I have filed a Step 1 grievance and written a letter directly to Huntsville as well and still await a response to both. In the meantime I am researching relevant case law in perparation. I will keep you informed of any changes.
03/22/2015
MIM Distributors protests censorship without notification
Show Text
RE: Illegal censorship of pubilcation to Mr.xxx at Boyd Unit
Dear Warden Tilley,
On January 30, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a publication Under Lock & Key No. 42 (January/February 2015) to the above named prisoner held at Boyd Unit. This newsletter was not returned to MIM Distributors, it was not received by Mr. xxx, and no notification was given to either party (the sender or the intended recipient) that this item was going to be intercepted from delivery to Mr. xxx. Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. xxx were sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Per Texas DOC policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)): "V. B. Any offender, other correspondent, or sender of a publication may appeal the rejection of any correspondence or publication. They may submit written evidence or arguments in support of their appeal. An offender or a correspondent may appeal the placement of the correspondent on the offender?s negative mailing list. An offender or a correspondent may appeal to the DRC for reconsideration of the negative mailing list placement after six months." Based on this we formally request an appeal of this censorship.
In your review of this censorship, please note that your own policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) states: "Publications shall not be rejected solely because the publication advocates the legitimate use of offender grievance procedures, urges offenders to contact public representatives about prison conditions, or contains criticism of prison authorities." In order to reject these publications for content, per your policy, you must demonstrate that the publication "contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or STG activity".
As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
04/03/2015
Corrections Law Support Nash says there's no problem with the mail Download Documentation
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c5945.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c5958.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c5959.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c5960.jpg){kind=link}