MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Many facilities in Illinois are enacting
total bans of
Under Lock & Key. Other facilities are censoring
all mail from MIM Distributors, whether it has political
content or not.
Multiple subscribers are joining together to take this censorship fight
the ban, and take it to court as needed. If you are an activist in
Illinois, or a lawyer, paralegal, or law student interested in
supporting this campaign, please
get in touch!
MIM Distributors protests ongoing illegal censorship. again
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 E. 2603 Road
Sheridan, IL 60551
March 25, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x
Dear PRC,
This letter is a follow-up to our letter from February 6, 2014 regarding the illegal censorship if mail to Mr. x, a prisoner housed at Sheridan Correctional Center. My February 6 letter outlined the illegal censorship of several pieces of mail sent to Mr. from MIM Distributors.
Since my last letter to your office, there has been another alarming incident of censorship at Sheridan Correctional Center. MIM Distriburotis sent Mr. a letter on February 7, via First Class mail with USPS, less than one ounce, with no labels on the envelope. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened. The only reason given for this censorship is "not allowed" hand written on the envelope. We were not sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Your Administrative Code Title 20, Part 525 Rights and Privileges, Section 525.140 Incoming Mail at point d) that "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband."
and at point h), "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of the decision."
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 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 letter in question.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the sender, 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.
We would appreciate if you took any necessary, appropriate and advisable measure (such as internal investigations, proper employees? training and similar) to stop this illegal ban on all mail coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of mail on an individual basis.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CC: Affected parties
Warden Marcus Hardy
04/11/2014
Litigation Coordinator says MIMS Notes is banned, but MIM Distributors is allowed Download Documentation
Prisoner filed grievance on mail tampering and won!
Show Text
I just got 2 Illinois Department of Corrections Material Review from each package you sent me for a Publication Review. This is the first time I ever got any notice from the Mail Room/Pub Review for ANYTHING. I've been raising the issue of unofficial censorship/mail tampering, because I NEVER get responses from organizations like MIM(Prisons), the Mid West Soaring Foundation, or ALC Chicago (Native American Cultural, Spiritual, Community Centers) or Prisoners Rights Research Project.
It's amusing that the Sept/Oct edition of ULK was delivered ONLY after I filed my first mail tampering grievance, that the May/June and July/August weren't delivered. I never received any notice of any other withholding of my mail until after we corroborated that mail was being tampered with and you sent the censorship packet (which was held a month and unstapled, copied, and I wasn't even notified).
B. Rose
Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kansas Street
Menard, IL 62259
April 11, 2013
RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key March/April 2013 No. 30
Dear Publication Review Officer Rose,
On April 1, 2013, we were notified that Menard Correctional Center is reviewing the above-named publication for potential censorship. This letter is to object to the potential censorship, and to petition you to allow this publication to be received by our subscribers in Menard Correctional Institution.
I believe you will find upon a close inspection of the publication that your concerns of "disruption" and "safety and security" are unsubstantiated. The articles in Under Lock & Key only advocate legal means of combatting illegal conditions of confinement. Please be aware that several Illinois institutions have allowed subscribers to receive this issue of ULK, such as Dixon Correctional Center, Hill Correctional Center, Stateville Correctional Center, among others.
If you do decide to censor this publication, please notify us as to the specific reasoning (laws or policies which it violates), as well as your justification for why Menard Correctional Center has a different standard of publication review than the above-mentioned facilities.
Also, please send a copy of the mail rules for Menard Correctional Center and any other mail rules you think would be helpful for a distributor of books and magazines to know. You can send this information to the address below.
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship without notification at Lawrence CC
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Lawrence Correctional Center
10930 Lawrence Rd
Sumner, IL 62466-4915
April 11, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a single sheet of paper to the above-named prisoner held at Lawrence Correctional Center. The contents of this paper was a list of mail that we had sent to Mr. XXX, and a brief letter asking him if he received it. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender" stamped on the envelope. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Dating back to 2011, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. We have documentation that two (2) letters inquiring about receipt of mail have been returned in this same way, and a letter we sent to a prisoner informing him/her of legal means of appealing censorship was also censored in the same exact way. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
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 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
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
MIM Distributors appeals ongoing ban of MIM mail at Stateville CC
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
16830 So. Broadway St.
P.O. Box 112
Joliet, IL 60434
April 11, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
On August 25, 2012 MIM Distributors mailed a single envelope containing 3 form letters to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center. The contents of this envelope was a form letter explaining the services of the prisoner support organization MIM(Prisons), a letter inquiring about the prisoner's plans after his release from prison, and a letter inviting him to participate in a study course. The envelope and contents was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned From Facility" written on the envelope. It was not accompanied with any indication as to why this mail was banned, or what policy even allows mail to be banned in IDOC. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Dating back to 2008, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 9: Psychology (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no legal or formal notification given to the sender as to why the mail is being banned, and the sender is not being afforded an opportunity to appeal the censorship.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
Additionally, also from your own Administrative Code, at 525.230, "b) A publication may not be rejected solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, or sexual or because its contents are unpopular or repugnant. A publication that may be rejected includes, but is not limited to, a publication or portion thereof that meets one of the following criteria:"
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 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
Warden
04/24/2013
Warden Lemke claims insitutions and department can ban literature/materials Download Documentation
Prisoner notifies MIM(Prisons) of censorship and files appeals
Show Text
[This issue of ULK was mailed to this subscriber in an envelope with the magazine "MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial." When s/he writes of the article "Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial" s/he is likely referring to the magazine. Unfortunately the information given to prisoners about the actual mail that is being censored is so limited and obtuse that they often do not even know what they received.]
This correspondence is to inform you that once again this prison has selected to review to determine whether they would censor the March/April issue of Under Lock & Key based on the premise of an article titled "Amerika Prison on Trial." It has been under review now since 5/3/12. I have requested from the Prison Publication Review Committee to afford me with the regulation statute or law that the article violates. And yes, I will pursue the grievance process if the issue is ultimately censored. I would pursue a Civil Complaint, but this state requires a $150 filing fee, and I'm a lumpen-proletarian which should speak for itself.
However, I would like to know, have MIM(Prisons) received any other complaints of censorship or the withholding of Under Lock & Key by any political prisoners confined in the Illinois Department of Correction? The reason is that it would help a lot in the grievance process to see and compare whether it's just this prison that is practicing this policy?
Prisoner filed a Section 1983 Civil Suit against IDOC director: S.A. Godinez
08/27/2012
Prisoner gives update on 1983 suit
Show Text
On October 3, 2011 I was notified by prison authorities that I had received the September/October 2011 No. 22 issue of Under Lock & Key in the mail. I was further notified that I could not have ULK because it is banned throughout the Illinois Department of Corrections. I grieved this unconstitutional banning of ULK since IDOC cannot validate its claim that ULK is a threat to security. On July 27, 2012 I filed a Section 1983 Civil Suit against the director of IDOC: S.A. Godinez.
This lawsuit is based on the grounds that IDOC cannot substantiate the banning of ULK and that the banning of ULK violates my Constitutional Rights to:
1) Receive and own reading material;
2) Have freedom of speech; and
3) Have freedom of political expression.
In my Statement of Claim I gave a brief definition of what MIM(Prisons) and ULK are. However, I was wondering if you would like to prepare a statement about what exactly MIM(Prisons) and ULK are and the purpose of their existence. If you would like to do this, please send me your Affidavits.
In further news, on August 16, 2012 another prisoner and I received a notice saying that we had received the July/August 2012 No. 27 issue of ULK in the mail and that we couldn't have it because ULK is banned. We are both currently in the second of three stages of the grievance procedure and will be filing a Class Action lawsuit within the next six months challenging the banning of ULK. This suit will merge with my already existing one.
Any information that you can send me on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
30 June 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners X, Y, Z, and P. The mail in question is MIM's newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009), that was denied because it supposedly is "detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline," and a threat to the "good order of the institution."
We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. However, we disagree that it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," as required by U.S. law under Turner v. Safley. For example, in every issue of Under Lock & Key, violence and illegal activity are distinctly discouraged. You can see for yourself at the bottom of page 2 of issue 8, in the "What is MIM(Prisons)?" box, quoted here for your convenience:
"Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts."
We don't only say this as a disclaimer on the second page, but uphold that perspective throughout all the articles in Under Lock & Key. We fail to see how a newsletter with a nonviolent perspective can "advocate or encourage violence," or how a newsletter that only advocates legal means of acquiring justice can "facilitate criminal activity," as the censorship notice from Menard Correctional Center states.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
letter to Publication Review requesting explanation
Show Text
Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
22 April 2009
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is regarding an ongoing pattern of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Menard Correctional Center. It seems that this mail is being returned to sender without consideration of its contents since none of the envelopes have been opened. One returned letter was a two-sentence letter to a prisoner confirming receipt of mail, a number of other returned pieces contained a publication with the expressed purpose of reducing violence in prisons. All of the mail was stamped with ?Item Not Permitted? and a couple had ?MIM Banned? written on them.
After reviewing Section 525.230 of the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Admn. Code Sec 525.230), it seems that a number of rules were overlooked in these incidents. First, part c) explains that written notice of administrative decisions to review a publication coming into the facility will be sent to the prisoner and the publisher, no later than 30 days from the date the facility received the item. In addition, part f) states that a publication can be banned after 6 consecutive denials. We never received notices for any of these issues. I also know that at least some of the prisoners who have been denied mail from MIM Distributors have also not been notified of the censorship. We did receive the last two issues returned to us with the above mentioned stamp, but this does not explain how the literature violates any of the criteria laid out in part b). I am confident that upon review you will find that it does not. Since we were not given an opportunity to request a review before, I am doing so now. Enclosed is the most recent issue of the publication Under Lock & Key that is published by MIM Distributors.
If it is true that the publication Under Lock & Key has been banned, does said ban apply to any mail with MIM Distributor?s return address on it, such as the aforementioned letter? The definition of ?Publication? in Section 525.202 does not include letters, and 525.300 does not seem to allow for a general ban of a party from sending mail to a prison. Please clarify.
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c4720.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c3234.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c3015.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c2669.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c2649.jpg){kind=link}
