Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

12 March 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 36

To Ms. Bostic,

On March 11, 2014 MIM Distributors received notice of censorship of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, issue number 36. Once again, the reason given was ?A code? and page 2 was cited. Once again, I am requesting a review of this decision by your office.

When you respond, I am requesting that you provide an explanation of what portion of Under Lock & Key you find objectionable and why. To date you have not told me what the reason is for censoring any issue of Under Lock & Key, nor have you told me what portion of page 2 is objectionable to you. As I have pointed out to you countless times now, your claims cannot be addressed if you do not tell us what they are. If you cannot provide me with this information, please explain to me why this is not possible. Your refusal to do so will be regarded as a lack of good faith in resolving the ongoing obstruction of MIM Distributor's mail to prisoners held by the state of North Carolina.

This letter is the same as my January 31, 2014 letter regarding ULK issue 35, which you failed to respond to.


Please respond this time,

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

17 May 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 37

To Whom It May Concern,

I am requesting an independent review of the decision to censor Under Lock & Key 37. Notice of censorship was received by MIM Distributors on 15 May 2014 and I am writing you on 17 May 2014. I requested reviews of the decisions to censor the previous two issues of ULK in March and January, respectively, but my requests were not responded to.

In addition, MIM Distributors has gone so far as to remove all content from page 2 of the newsletter, since the NCDPS refused to indicate what content on that page was being used to justify censoring every issue of Under Lock & Key.

In the most recent incident Fay Lassiter has cited an article on fundraising and using money wisely and claims that it advocates ?Violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its' institutions.? I assert that this is a baseless accusation, and am requesting once again an explanation as to what content exactly your department finds to substantiate these claims in Under Lock & Key. MIM Distributors has acted in good faith to adjust the content of its mail to accommodate the restrictions of your department, but cannot continue to do so when all of its mail is censored without explanation.

Cynthia Bostic
Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4274 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4274

Re: Approval of issue No. 36 of Under Lock & Key. Disapproval of No. 37 of Under Lock & Key.

June 24, 2014

Dear Assistant Director Bostic,

We received on June 13, 2014 your response to our appeal of the Publication Review Committee decision to disapprove Under Lock & Key Nos. 36 and 37. Despite the letter being dated June 4, 2014, it is in fact postmarked June 11, 2014.

Regarding Under Lock & Key No. 36:

As to the approval of issue No. 36, we do not understand the reason why we should resubmit the publication ?to be received by inmates?, as you state in your letter. As you are certainly aware, section D.0105(d) of your Policy and Procedures, Chapter D, prescribes that all disapproved publications are held by the Review Committee pending the completion of the publisher?s appeal procedure. The policy specifies that, upon completion of the procedure, disapproved publications are returned to the facility and that approved publications are also ?returned to the facility from which they were received?, obviously enough to be then distributed to the prisoners to which they were originally sent. It would make no sense to return to the facilities only the disapproved publications, while obligating the publisher, upon the positive completion of the appeal procedure, to re-send the approved ones, which incidentally and illegitimately burdens the publisher with additional costs for which they should not be responsible. We are therefore requesting that the all the copies of the approved publication be returned to the facilities from which they came from and be distributed to the prisoners to which they were originally sent.

Regarding Under Lock & Key No. 37:

As to the disapproval of No. 37, you quote some language on page three, second column, paragraph 1 as the reason for disapproval. First, the phrases you quote are actually on page 1, second column, paragraph 1 of the publication. Furthermore, we disagree with your statement that the language could ever constitute a reason for disapproval. The language that you quote simply reports some opinions that encourage prisoners to make use of their constitutional rights, such as beginning legal action in case of abuses, torts and so forth. We do not comprehend how stopping ordering packages (a perfectly legitimate right that all prisoner have) might encourage or support insurrection, as you surprisingly state. None of the quoted language can be brought back to any of the legitimate reasons for disapproval, as they are listed at section D.0109 of the Policy.

Furthermore, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957.

Based on the above considerations, we request that you follow your Department's own Policy and Procedure in the further handling of Under Lock & Key No. 36. We expect that the previously censored issues will be returned to the Warden/Superintendents with your decision to approve the publication, and then the held issues will be distributed to their intended recipients, the prisoners, at your Department's expense.

Secondly, we request that your censorship determination regarding issue No. 37 of Under Lock & Key be reversed and that the publication be allowed to prisoners held at any facility of your Department.

Lastly, we request to be sent an up-to-date copy of the Master List of Disapproved Publications.

Please, be advised that in case you persist on your position to disapprove No. 37 of Under Lock & Key, we will consider beginning legal action to protect and enforce our rights as publishers in this matter.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Warden J.E. Thomas
U.S. Lewisberg
2400 Robert F. Miller Dr
Lewisberg, PA 17837

Jul 29, 2014

Re: Censorship of XXX mail; and special mail regulations via 28 CFR 540-20(a); 28 CFR 540.70(4)(b)

Warden Thomas,

Our organization publishes a newsletter known as Under Lock & Key (ULK). We publish news on various topics concerning the treatment of prisoners and politics. It has come to our attention that our mail to Mr. XXX is being censored: it is not being provided to him based purely on the political "content of the material" though it poses no threat to the safety or security to your facility.

28CFR 540.70(4)(b) states in relevant part:

"The warden may reject a publication only if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity. The warden may not reject a publication solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social or sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant?"

Below is a list of the mail we sent to Mr. XXX over the past year and a half which was censored:

Under Lock & Key 36 mailed 3/25/2014
MIM Theory 9 mailed 3/25/2014
MIM Theory 5 mailed 3/25/2014
MIM Theory 7 mailed 3/25/2014
Black Panther Party Newspaper Collection mailed 3/25/2014
Teoria del MIM 1 mailed 3/25/2014
Que es el MIM? mailed 3/25/2014
Under Lock & Key 34 mailed 9/27/2013
Under Lock & Key 33 mailed 7/30/2013
Under Lock & Key 32 mailed 5/28/2013
Under Lock & Key 31 mailed 3/26/2013
Censorship guide mailed 2/27/2013
MIM Theory 1 mailed 2/18/2013

We request to receive notice and specific reasoning (if any) for the censorship or nondelivery of any of our mail or publications sent to Mr. XXX pursuant to BOP policy. We request that Mr. XXX be notified as well (see 28 CFR 540.13). This notification will enable us to appeal and pursue litigation.

In the case of the recent 3/25/2014 set of mail, we were notified that the "material enclosed contains gang information, discussing restructuring of the Black Panthers." We request more information about this rejection and detail about what specifically in these publications involved "gang information." We do not agree that there is any such information in those publications. Some of them include historical information about the Black Panther Party, but this is political and historical material that is not detrimental to the prison so we can only conclude it was rejected in violation of 28 CFR 540.70.

Moreover, we are requesting that our correspondence with Mr. XXX be treated and processed as "special mail" which mandates that said mail be signed for by Mr. XXX and logged into a special mail log book, see 28 CFR 540.20(a): "An inmate may write through "special mail" to representatives of the news media specified by name or title (see, 540.2(b))."

We make this formal request after repeated nondelivery of mail, newsletters and other documents sent to Mr. XXX. Because of this censorship we make this formal complaint in hopes you will address this problem decisively and expeditiously so that no other action is necessary.

To summarize we request:
- A review of the censorship of the 3/25/2014 mail sent to Mr. XXX
- To be provided with details on the nature of the material that was found to violate prison policy and merit censorship
- Notification of censorship of all future mail be provided to both MIM(Prisons) and Mr. XXX in a timely manner
- Processing as "special mail" our correspondence with Mr. XXX in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this most important matter.

Respectfully,

MIM(Prisons)
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Deputy Director Jeff Hood
Arizona Department of Corrections
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

July 27, 2014

RE: Ban of Under Lock & Key in Saguaro Correctional Center

Dear Director,

This letter is in response to a letter we received from Carla Robertson, Mailroom Supervisor at Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, AZ. I have attached this letter for your reference.

I am writing to inquire about the legitimacy of the attached letter. Please send me a copy of any ?ban list? that Under Lock & Key or MIM Distributors is listed on. This is obviously an illegal practice on the part of Ms. Robertson. The letter is also quite odd in that it is not on company letterhead, and is barely intelligible.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response. If you are not able to assist me with this matter, I kindly ask you to refer me to a party who can.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden Todd Thomas

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

Your item was delivered at 10:59 am on February 13, 2012 in CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531.

. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531
May 1, 2013

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of publication sent to xxx

Dear Warden Lewis,

I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents that has been ongoing at Pelican Bay State Prison. Mr. XXX has recently informed MIM Distributors that several items which we have sent him have not reached him. In fact, one of the items was sent via Certified Mail with the USPS, and was confirmed as delivered. The primary concern is that neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship of any of the materials listed below.

Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with
Certified Mail Service
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012) sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/August 2012) sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

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.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
- to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
- in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
- and that adequate notice be provided to Mr.XXX of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response. I have enclosed copies of the Certified Mail Receipt and confirmation of deliver for the Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook. If course we would have liked to appeal this censorship in a more timely fashion, but having not afforded the courtesy of notification of censorship, there was of course a delay between when the items were censored and when we discovered the censorship.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531

May 26, 2014

RE: Censorship incidents at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of mail sent to XX

Dear Warden Lewis,

I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents at Pelican Bay State Prison, following up to our correspondence last year. Mr. XX has recently informed MIM Distributors that all items which we sent him in 2013 did not reach him. We have enclosed a list of these items below for your reference. In your letter to us dated May 29, 2013 you claimed that the mail which did not reach Mr. XX never made it to PBSP and so you conclude that these items were not denied. But you ignored the fact that one of the items was sent via USPS Certified Mail, and was confirmed as delivered to your prison. We sent you the proof that the mail was received and you still claimed "PBSP has no record of these publications ever being denied to the inmate?" This is not an acceptable response to proof that your prison has lost track of mail that never reached Mr. XX. Our concern is both with the ongoing denial of all mail to Mr. XX, and failure to notify both MIM Distributors and Mr. XX.

In our last letter to you we raised the censorship of the materials listed below:

Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with
Certified Mail Service
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012) sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/August 2012) sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail

We now add to this list the following items:

Pamphlet Guide to Fighting Censorship sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 31 sent March 26, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Delivery confirmation for Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook and copy of letter to Warden regarding censorship sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 32 sent May 28, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 33 sent July 30, 2013 via presorted standard mail
California campaign update sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 34 sent September 27, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 35 sent December 6, 2013 via presorted standard mail

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

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.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
- to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications from 2013;
- in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
- an investigation into the individuals responsible for disposal of the USPS Certified Mail that was received by your prison but not delivered to Mr. XX, and a full report on the findings of this investigation
- and that adequate notice be provided to Mr. XX of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response. Of course we would have liked to appeal this censorship in a more timely fashion, but having not been afforded the courtesy of notification of censorship, there was of course a delay between when the items were censored and when we discovered the censorship.

Sincerely,

XX, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


CC: Affected parties

Warden C.E. Ducart
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95532
29 June 2014
RE: Censorship with xxx

Warden Ducart,
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 2014. I appreciate you looking into this matter. With this present letter, I have complied with your instructions to re-send our mail (at our expense) to Captain Patton, ISU. While we have complied with your instructions, I feel compelled to comment. Firstly, while we appreciate any opportunity to resolve censorship in Pelican Bay State Prison, this is an expensive and time-consuming process for us. If your Mailroom Staff were handling incoming mail in accordance with your own Department's policies and procedures, you would not need to invent special ?channels? to get mail to prisoners.

Regarding your statement that ?during the time frame, you identified inmate xx was housed in four different facilities at two separate institutions.? On the contrary, we did not make this claim in our prior letters. All the mail listed was sent to Mr.xx at Pelican Bay State Prison.

If Mr. xx had been moved during the time period listed, we are easily able to locate Mr. xx's current address on CDCR's Inmate Locator website. Even if the listed information is incorrect, your Department Operations Manual (DOM) states at 54010.6 Recipient's Address that ?The receiving institution is required to update any mail piece that does not reflect accurate housing or institutional location.? So while we make every effort to properly address our mail, even if the information online is incorrect or we made an administrative mistake, this is a moot point. The staff at the receiving facility are obligated to correct the intended recipient's address. If Pelican Bay Mailroom Staff were in fact properly handling our mail, an incorrect address could not have been the cause for this problem.

More concerning, we have never received a response from yourself or former Warden Lewis regarding the Certified Mail that was not delivered to Mr. xx. In May 2013 we wrote to your office regarding this blatant violation of Mr. xx's right, afforded by the U.S. Constitution as well as your own DOM at 54010.1, to communicate with the outside world. At Section 54010.11 Certified Mail, your DOM states ?the person to whom the Certified mail is addressed must sign for delivery before receiving the mail piece.? The USPS reports that the Certified Mail piece was delivered on February 13, 2013. Are you able to provide verification that Mr. xx did in fact sign for this mail piece upon receipt? I would appreciate your effort in investigating this specific issue.

In your recent letter you ?surmise that inmate xx received the publications and/or is being deceptive with his claims.? As the recent heir of a long standing problem in your facility, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the historical illegal practices of the Mailroom Staff at PBSP, and I hope you will take a proactive approach to remedy this ongoing problem. The Mailroom Staff at Pelican Bay State Prison have a years-long, documented history of improperly handling incoming mail from MIM(Prisons) and MIM Distributors, dating back at least to 2006. The illegal practice is not just in censoring mail without providing notice to prisoners and publishers, but also in blatantly disregarding legal settlements that directly impact how they are supposed to handle our mail. Considering this history, it is difficult for me to imagine Mr. xx would lie about whether he received his mail. See: http://prisoncensorship.info/data?state=CA&fac=29

Attached is a list of mail we have sent to Captain B. Patton, ISU, per your instructions. Again, we would not need to use special channels to have our mail received by their intended recipients if PBSP staff were processing mail properly. We look forward to Captain Patton's affirmation, and your response to this letter.

Sincerely,

Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors


CC: Affected Parties

Captain B. Patton, ISU
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7200
Crescent City, CA 95531
29 June 2014
Captain Patton,

We were recently notified by Warden Ducart that you will be assisting us in resolving a censorship issue between our organization and Mr. xx. I have attached a copy of Warden Ducart's letter for your reference. We look forward to resolving this issue, and we appreciate your effort to assist us in this important matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions, and we are eagerly awaiting your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

LIST OF ENCLOSED MAIL

All of the mail pieces listed below were originally sent to
xx Pelican Bay State Prison, PO Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95531-7500.

Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012)
sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail

Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook
sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with Certified Mail Service

Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012)
sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail

Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012)
sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail

Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture
and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/Aug. 2012)
sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Pamphlet Guide to Fighting Censorship
sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail

Newsletter Under Lock & Key 31
sent March 26, 2013 via presorted standard mail

Delivery confirmation for Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook
and copy of letter to Warden regarding censorship
sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail

Newsletter Under Lock & Key 32
sent May 28, 2013 via presorted standard mail

Newsletter Under Lock & Key 33
sent July 30, 2013 via presorted standard mail

Newsletter Under Lock & Key 34
sent September 27, 2013 via presorted standard mail

Newsletter Under Lock & Key 35
sent December 6, 2013 via presorted standard mail

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/data?focus=3633

It usually takes between 5-16 days for me to receive mailings after the date you send the item. I just three days ago received the unconfirmed mail form (dated 6/25/14) concerning ULK 36's approval for receipt by me from you. No I still have not received ULK 36 and I'm not going to ever receive ULK 36 from NCDPS because NCDPS mailroom staff never presented me with neither a disapproval waiver/appeal nor statewide ban notification form. In other words, NCDPS mailroom staff just threw away/tossed that issue.