MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Second Step Grievance Response - prisond denies prisoner appeal of censorship
Show Text
Your grievance has been reviwed. Your claim is that you are being denied the return address of mail rejected by the AMF property room.
The step one grievance, response and appeal have been reviewed. It was explained thoroughly in the Step 1 response that the mail rejected clearly encouraged group disruption and ways to participate. It was further explained that you were identified as part of a tight group of activists from the Michigan area. Additionally, if you were provided the return address it would encourage you to participate in group disruption in violation of policy. You have been provided with mail on a regular basis at AMF in accordance with PD 05.03.118 Prisoner Mail. No violations of policy or procedure are noted here.
Based on the above, this grievance appeal is denied.
Second Step Grievance Response - prison denies prisoner appeal of censorship
Show Text
Your grievance has been reviewed. The claim in your grievance #AMF[xxx] that RUM Niemi is incorrect in hiw response to the Step I grievance. Your grievance has to do with you not being given a photocopied publication.
Te Step I grievance and response have been reviewed. The Step I grievance was responed to within the time limits. The Step I respondent and an investigation indicated that the two publications received by the mailroom, addressed to you, were not from an approved vendor. These items were properly rejected and that rejection was upheld via the administrative hearing process. There has been no violation of PD 05.03.118 Prisoner Mail or PD 03.02.130 Prisoner/Parolee Grievances. Your access to the courts has not been infringed upon.
The grievance appeal has been reviewed. The investigation at Step I was appropriate and responsive to your claim. The grievant is being housed in a safe and secure manner in accordance with PD 04.05.120 Segregation Standards.
In the absence of any additional information in your appeal to support your greivance claim, nothing further is required in response.
threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the facility, may facilitate or encourage criminal activity or may interfere with the rehabilitation of the prisoner. (see more on form filed)
Pg. 2 indicates the publication "serves to develop and promote agitational campaigns", and encourages prisoners to participate in disruptive activity.[Download Documentation]
Warden Thomas Mackie
Baraga Correctional Facility
13924 Wadaga Road
Baraga, MI 49908-9204
January 7, 2014
Dear Warden Mackie,
On December 18, 2013, we received a censorship determination from your Department regarding our publication titled Under Lock & Key issue no. 35 (November/December 2013), which was sent to Mr. xxx.
The determination states that the publication was ?disapproved? for delivery to the inmate because page 2 of the publication allegedly violates PD 05.03.118 "Prisoner Mail." The specific reason for the censorship is that the publication is a "threat to the order and security" (?Prisoners prohibited from receiving mail that is a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the facility, that may facilitate or encourage criminal activity, or that may interfere with the rehabilitation of the prisoner.?).
With the present letter MIM Distributors appeals the negative determination and requests the decision be reversed and the publication be delivered to Mr. xxx as soon as possible.
The page mentioned on the letter to the publisher focuses on the United Front for Peace in Prisons, which is clearly not a threat to the safety of any person, and is in fact an attempt to quell the violence that runs rampant all across the prison system. This attempt is not without basis; unity around common principles has been proven historically to eliminate violence among differing groups, even in prisons. How can information on making peace within prisons be a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system? Without doubt, if there were less prisoner-on-prisoner violence, it would relieve much of the occupational hazard for Correctional Officers and actually increase the security and good order of the correctional system, and personal self-discipline of the prisoners.
The content on page 2 which is not related to the United Front for Peace in Prisons contains political considerations on imperialism and a description of what Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons is and does. This information is certainly political, but does not constitute at any rate a threat to the security of the institution. Let me remind you that your ownPolicy Directive 05.03.118 Prisoner Mail, under "General Information" at Section D states that ?Mail shall not be prohibited solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.?
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has already stated in Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974) and in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490, U.S. at 416 n. 14 (1989), that prison officials violate the First Amendment when, for reasons unrelated to legitimate penological interests, they engage in ?censorship of . . . expression of 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'.?
Lastly, 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 the censorship determination be reversed and that the publication be allowed to prisoners held at any facility of your Department.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
MIM Distributors explains article is arguing for peace
Show Text
Warden Thomas Mackie
Baraga Correctional Facility
13924 Wadaga Road
Baraga, MI 49908-9204
February 6, 2014
RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 35 (November/December 2013)
Dear Warden Mackie,
I am in receipt of your letter dated January 24. 2014, in which you say that the above named publication is still being denied delivery to its intended recipients held in Baraga Correctional Facility.
The piece of the publication you quoted as grounds for censorship can be found on page 4 of the issue. The argument being made in the article is not that prisoners should link up with street organizations, as you claim in your letter. The argument being made is "If the power to end violence exists within our communities, then we should be looking for ways to increase our power, and we should be looking for ways to exercise it." The entire point of the article is decreasing violence and increasing peace.
The author goes on to state "The problem is that most street organizations are moving in the wrong direction [toward violence]. They're engaging in the wrong social practices which are retarding the growth and development of our people." The author states that the point of this article is to "put an end to police brutality, homelessness, hunger, war, etc." The article is a discussion on how to increase peace in oppressed communities, which would include within prisons. Nothing here points to a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the facility, unless you include prisoner in-fighting as part of the "good order" of the facility.
I look forward to your response and the imminent delivery of this publication to Mr. xxx, as it was originally intended.