MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
initiated in March 2016 updated on January 30, 2020
The book Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán has been banned
throughout the state of Texas. The reason given for this censorship is
bogus, and it has been upheld all the way through the Director’s Review
Committee. Read more about the reason for banning the book here. Chican@
Power outlines the special oppressive history of the colonization of
Texas from the day the Spaniards landed on the continent to the present,
so it’s not lost on us that the banning of this book is an extension of
that oppressive history.
Texas Department of Criminal inJustice (TDCJ) mail rules work out so
that any book that is censored at the Director’s level remains on a
banned list forever. We are working with dedicated jailhouse lawyers to
attempt a lawsuit to get this book back into the hands of prisoners in
Texas, and hopefully to change the TDCJ rules so that banned materials
must be re-reviewed periodically. There is precedent for this process in
other states, for example in North Carolina, publications remain on the
Master List of Disapproved Publications (MLDP) for a limited period of
time, and then must be re-reviewed by mailroom staff and censored
publications must go through the appeals process from scratch to be
placed back on the MLDP. While this still allows for censorship of
political materials, it may be an achievable reform in Texas through a
lawsuit. Here we will be posting updates on this anti-censorship
campaign. If you are a lawyer in Texas and can help with this struggle,
please get in touch!
Form Filed: TDCJ Publication Review/Denial Notification (from prisoner)
Show Text
(c) It 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 security threat group activity.
Remarks: pg 234 promotes peaceful protests, noncooperations, hunger strike and no labor
Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes
11/14/2015
MIM protests censorship without notification
Show Text
Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342
November 14, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of book to Mr. xx
Dear Director Thaler,
On September 28, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a book titled Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlan to the above named prisoner held at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, TX. This book was not returned to MIM Distributors, and it was not received by Mr. xx. MIM Distributors was not sent any notification for this censorship, and we would not have known the book was censored except that Mr. xx informed us himself. MIM Distributors was not 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 reason that was cited to censor this material to Mr. xx is invalid. The reason given was that it “promotes peaceful protests, non cooperation, hunger strike, no labor.” But the book does not promote these activities.
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.
MIM protests censorship without notification
Show Text
Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342
November 14, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of book to Mr.xxx
Dear Director Thaler,
On September 28, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a book titled Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlan to the above named prisoner held at Hughes Unit in Gatesville, TX. This book was not returned to MIM Distributors, and it was not received by Mr. xxx. MIM Distributors was not sent any notification for this censorship, and we would not have known the book was censored except that Mr. xxx informed us himself. MIM Distributors was not 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,
CC: Affected parties
11/19/2015
Prisoner filed Step 1 grievance
Show Text
I filed a Step 1 Grievance pertaining to the denial of the publication "Chicano Power and the Struggle for Aztlan" on the ground that I was not given an official "Decision Form" from the Director's Review Committee pending a decision regarding my appeal of this unit's rejection of said publication. I will prepare myself for Step 2 if necessary.
01/13/2016
DRC upheld censorship of book
Show Text
Letter from prisoner: The book titled "Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlan" appeared on the Director's Review Committee denial list for December 2015. Now the mailroom is saying they don't have the book anymore, as I still had 2 weeks to send it back out, either home or to you. So I've filed another grievance because of that.
MIM Protests censorship without notification
Show Text
Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342
November 12, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of book to Mr. xxx
Dear Director Thaler,
On October 5, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a book titled Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlan to the above named prisoner held at Garza East Unit in Beeville, TX. This book was not returned to MIM Distributors, and it was not received by Mr. xx. MIM Distributors was not sent any notification for this censorship, and we would not have known the book was censored except that Mr. xx informed us himself. MIM Distributors was not 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.
Form Filed: TDCJ Publication Review/Denial Notification
Show Text
(c) It 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 security threat group activity.
Remarks: Pg 234 Promotes peaceful protest, non-cooperation, hunger strike and no labor
Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes.
11/14/2015
MIM Protests censorship without notification, and reason is invalid
Show Text
Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342
November 14, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of book to Mr. xxx
Dear Director Thaler,
On September 28, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a book titled Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlan to the above named prisoner held at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, TX. This book was not returned to MIM Distributors, and it was not received by Mr. xx. MIM Distributors was not sent any notification for this censorship, and we would not have known the book was censored except that Mr. xx informed us himself. MIM Distributors was not 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 reason that was cited to censor this material to Mr. xx is invalid. The reason given was “p. 234 promotes peaceful protest, non cooperation, hunger strike, & no labor.” I have enclosed a copy of page 234 for your convenience. As you can see, there is NO promotion on this page of those activities.
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,
Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Form Filed: DRC upholds censorhip, makes no sense
Show Text
The Director's Review Committee (DRC) has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejection of 1 page from an previously denied publication received in contradiction with BP-03.91, Uniform OFfender Corresepondence Rules.
...
It is the decision of the DRC to uphold the Unit rejection of the above mentioned item(s). You will have 60 dyas from the above date to make disposition of the denied item unless security mandates there be no disposition.
02/26/2016
MIM Distributors makes disposition on censored book
Show Text
Correctional Institutions Division
Director's Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
25 February 2016
RE: Illegal censorship of book to Mr. xx
Dear Director,
This letter is to make a disposition of the censorship of the book Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlan, which was originally sent to Mr. xx on September 28, 2016, at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, TX.
This book was censored for “p. 234 promotes peaceful protest, noncooperation, hunger strike, and no labor.”
MIM Distributors, the sender, was not notified of the censorship. This is a violation of Texas DOC policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) and various established case law.
On November 14, 2015, MIM Distributors wrote to your office. In that letter we:
1. appealed the censorship, and sent you a copy of p. 234
2. notified you that the censorship violated case law and DOC Policy
3. asked you to follow U.S. law and TDCJ policy
4. asked you to allow delivery of the book to Mr. xx
On January 6, 2016, your office responded to our November 14 letter, upholding the censorship. This DRC Decision Form gives no indication of in what way p. 234 violates mail rules. It does not explain what process was used to determine to uphold this censorship.
Being that the January 6 letter gives no information, and that continuing to uphold p. 234 as a reason for censorship is completely nonsensical, a reasonable person can only conclude that no investigation was made on the matter and that the DRC has no intention of actually following TCDJ policies or U.S. established case law.
We would like you to correct this error, and thoroughly review the matter at hand. We look forward to your response.
