MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of six (6) copies of the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). These issues were returned to us by Suwannee Correctional Facility, stamped “UTF Unable to Forward.” We are the distributors of ULK. A review of the Florida DOC Offender Locator shows that each of these prisoners was housed at Suwannee C.I. at the time of delivery of the issue and at the time they were returned to us. These prisoners are in fact still housed at Suwannee C.I.
These actions in returning ULK constitutes de facto censorship of our publication and violates our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is clear the prisoners were and continue to be housed at Suwannee C.I. and were so at the time the publication was delivered by postal authorities.
Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand an explanation of this violation of our Constitutional rights as well as the violation of the Florida Administrative Code concerning the handling of inmate publications received by mail.
Please provide your written response which addresses this serious issue within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. You may reply to the address listed.
Form Filed: Notice of Rejection - "Presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person"
Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internati
Form Filed: Notice of Rejection - "Presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person"
Form Filed: Notice of Rejection - "Presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person"
Form Filed: Notice of Rejection - "Presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person"
It is dangerously inflammatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurrection, disruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules
dangerously inflammatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurrection, disruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
September 13, 2015
RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and ULK45
Dear Ms. Morrison,
This letter is in response to notifications received by prisoners throughout the Florida prison system regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and 45 . The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered. As you know, many prisoners throughout the Florida system were affected by this decision but because Florida refuses to follow it's own rules and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process requirements and notify us each time mail is rejected we have only received notifications of a few instances directly. 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 insisting 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)).
Regarding the reasons for denial, the vague "threat to security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person" continues to be the justification. For ULK 45 a few prisons made a cursory attempt to justify this decision by listing page numbers that were found to violate Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401. While we're pleased to see Florida DOC attempting to follow it's own policies by actually providing some reasons for impounding Under Lock & Key, the items listed can not be construed as a threat to security. This includes:
1. "PG 5,9,10 Is ULK too Hardcore for the DOC by a FL Inmate" This was a report about Florida censoring ULK. It's interesting that reporting on this censorship is now justification for further censorship. Can you please explain how this reporting is a threat to security and good order?
2. "PG: 12 Payment by stamps" There is a request that prisoners send in stamps to MIM(prisons) to cover the cost of the free distribution of ULK and other literature they want. But we are clear that they should only do this where institution rules allow. And surely you can not really suggest that this request is a threat to security?
3. "Front cover: STG Symbols." On the cover of this publication there was artwork that read "Each One Teach One" representing the educational goal of this issue of ULK which was focused on promoting education and study within prison. Does the FL DOC claim that education is a threat to security? Or perhaps it was the hammer and sickle that the FL DOC has now classified as an STG Symbol? We request that you specify exactly what was an STG symbol on the front cover.
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 ongoing censorship of Under Lock & Key by the Florida DOC is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. The employee who reviewed this publication and the Literature Review Committee may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.
This letter is a formal request for appeal of these denials. Should you once again decide to uphold the censorship, we formally request that you provide a clear response regarding the reasons for denial of ULK44 and ULK45 to prisoners in Florida.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
September 13, 2015
RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and ULK45
Dear Ms. Morrison,
This letter is in response to notifications received by prisoners throughout the Florida prison system regarding the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 44 and 45 . The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletters delivered. As you know, many prisoners throughout the Florida system were affected by this decision but because Florida refuses to follow it's own rules and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process requirements and notify us each time mail is rejected we have only received notifications of a few instances directly. 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 insisting 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)).
Regarding the reasons for denial, the vague "threat to security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person" continues to be the justification. For ULK 45 a few prisons made a cursory attempt to justify this decision by listing page numbers that were found to violate Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401. While we're pleased to see Florida DOC attempting to follow it's own policies by actually providing some reasons for impounding Under Lock & Key, the items listed can not be construed as a threat to security. This includes:
1. "PG 5,9,10 Is ULK too Hardcore for the DOC by a FL Inmate" This was a report about Florida censoring ULK. It's interesting that reporting on this censorship is now justification for further censorship. Can you please explain how this reporting is a threat to security and good order?
2. "PG: 12 Payment by stamps" There is a request that prisoners send in stamps to MIM(prisons) to cover the cost of the free distribution of ULK and other literature they want. But we are clear that they should only do this where institution rules allow. And surely you can not really suggest that this request is a threat to security?
3. "Front cover: STG Symbols." On the cover of this publication there was artwork that read "Each One Teach One" representing the educational goal of this issue of ULK which was focused on promoting education and study within prison. Does the FL DOC claim that education is a threat to security? Or perhaps it was the hammer and sickle that the FL DOC has now classified as an STG Symbol? We request that you specify exactly what was an STG symbol on the front cover.
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 ongoing censorship of Under Lock & Key by the Florida DOC is a clear violation of the Thornburgh ruling as statements of political views alone can not be used to deny literature to prisoners. The employee who reviewed this publication and the Literature Review Committee may not agree with the content of the newsletter, but that does not justify censorship.
This letter is a formal request for appeal of these denials. Should you once again decide to uphold the censorship, we formally request that you provide a clear response regarding the reasons for denial of ULK44 and ULK45 to prisoners in Florida.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
MIM(Prisons) protests lack of notification
Show Text
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
January 22, 2015
RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when its publications were impounded or rejected. I am 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)).
In September 2013, my colleague XX wrote to you regarding this same matter and Susan Hughes responded explaining that only one facility will notify the publisher of censorship. However, once again, no FDOC staff has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of multiple issues of Under Lock & Key including:
Two items sent to YYY at Dade Correctional Institution
Under Lock & Key 40 mailed 9/26/2014
Under Lock & Key 41 mailed 12/10/2014
Two items sent to ZZZ at Suwanee Correctional Institution
Under Lock & Key 40 mailed 9/26/2014
Under Lock & Key 39 mailed 8/1/2014
I hope that you will honor my request for an appeal of this decision to censor, since the FDOC failed to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship and therefore the 15 days within receiving notice has not yet been passed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
