MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
prisoner notifies MIM Dist of censorship, appealed
Show Text
I was denied July/Aug 2015 No. 45 because the mail room "claims" pgs 1 & 6 contain information detailing prisoner strikes! I appealed it, but it was upheld!
Prisoner notifies MIM Distributors of censorship
Show Text
The Jul/Aug 2015 No. 45 issue was denied. Pages 1 + 6 contain information detailing prison strikes which they say is a security risk. The DRC upheld the denial.
Form Filed: 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: Reason c: Page 3 advocates a hunger strike
08/07/2015
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship without notification
Show Text
Director's Review Committee
Bill Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
August 7, 2015
RE: Illegal censorship of mail at Bill Clements Unit to Mr.
Dear Director's Review Committee,
On January 22, 2015 I mailed you a letter on this same problem. I never received a response from your office.
We were recently made aware that mail we have been sending to the above named prisoner is being withheld and denied. The above named prisoner has been sending us documentation on this censorship. But our office has not been notified by the mailroom staff at Clements Unit directly.
Two specific items that we are aware of this happening with are
Under Lock & Key No. 27 (July/August 2012), mailed via First Class mail with USPS on 6/2/15
and
Under Lock & Key No. 35 (November/December 2013), mailed via First Class mail with USPS on 3/31/15
There may be additional items which have been withheld and denied in this manner which we are not aware of.
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
09/03/2015
Mail System Coordinators Panel responds to MIM Distributor's letter: issues denied in the past Download Documentation
10/25/2015
MIM Dist. protests censorship: ULK27 already approved, ULK35 allowed to be re-appealed
Show Text
Jennifer XXXXXX, Program Supervisor
Mail System Coordinators Panel
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
October 25, 2015
RE: Continued censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 27 and No. 35 to Mr. xxx
Dear Supervisor XXXXXX,
This letter is in response to yours from September 3, 2015. Thank you for providing some insight into why our mail is being returned to us with no explanation of censorship.
In your letter you state that Under Lock & Key No. 27 was denied by the Director's Review Committee on September 9, 2012. With this letter I have enclosed a copy of the Director's Review Committee decision to REVERSE the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 27 on September 4, 2012. Please send me the documentation you have which supposedly upholds the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 27 because we have never seen it.
In your letter you allude to lists which contain Director's Review Committee decisions on publications. You allude to an Approved Publication List, and I assume there is a Disapproved Publication List based on the information provided about the censorship process in TDCJ. With this letter I would like to respectfully ask for these lists to be sent to me at the address above.
Regarding these lists, you state that once the Director's Review Committee renders a decision on a publication that it can never be appealed. However, according to Texas DOC Policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) (which I also included in my last letter of August 7, 2015):
"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."
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 summary, with this letter I am requesting:
1. You stop censoring Under Lock & Key No. 27, because it was already approved by the Director's Review Committee on September 4, 2012.
2. You allow us to appeal the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, because per BP-03.91, we are permitted to appeal the Director's Review Committee's decision after six months.
3. That you send us copies of the Approved and Disapproved Publications Lists, or their equivalent.
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: Pgs 1&6 contain information detailing prison strikes
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: Pgs 1 + 6 contain information detailing prison strikes
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: Pgs 1&6 contain information detailing prison strikes
Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes
09/14/2015
Prisoner appeals censorship on Publication Review/Denial Notification form
Form Filed: Publication Denial Notification from Mail System Coordinator Panel
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: Reason C. Pages 1 & 6 contain information detailing prison strikes.
Form Filed: TDCJ Publication Review/Denial Notification
Show Text
Form Filed: TDCJ Publication Review/Denial Notification
(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: Pgs 1 + 6 contain information detailing prison strikes
(c) It contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the pirpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots or security threat group activity.
Page 6 contains material of a racial nature.
05/11/2015
Prisoner informed MIM(Prisons) about censorship, did we get it?
Show Text
On No. 35 Nov 2013, I had to send it back. They would not let me have it. Did yall get it? Also I sent yall all the paperwork to show why they denied it. Did yall get it? I've wrote to find out why they take so long to send me my ULK and I've not heard nothing back. Want to thank you for all the newsletters and all the assistance.
Mailroom staff say it's unappealable but then say the prisoner did not wish to appeal
Show Text
Due to the fact that I already have a lawsuit pending against various officials here on this unit and the Executive Director William Stevenson, I feel this is a form of retaliation due to the fact that several witnesses over-heard the mailroom clerk inform me that there was no appeal as the issue involved was unappealable. But after he gave me the copy of the denial form he had checked that I stated that I did not wish to appeal the denial! So I'm letting you know about this and that I have filed a Step One Grievance regarding the matter. I have collected witness statements from six other prisoners/comrades housed in the area with me.
MIM(Prisons) protests lack of notification
Show Text
Director's Review Committee
Bill Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
January 22, 2015
RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX and YYY
Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received letters from Mr. XXX and Mr YYY notifying us that they did not receive the publications we mailed to both of them in the past few months.
For Mr. XXX this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 41 November 2014 (mailed on December 10)
For Mr. YYY this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 35 November 2013 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 36 January 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 37 March 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 38 May 2014 (mailed on August 13)
Per your policy BP03.91 IVD: "The offender and the sender or addressee shall be provided a written statement of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within three business days after receiving the correspondence. The notice shall be given on Correspondence Denial Forms. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected correspondence to permit effective use of the appeal procedures." In violation of this policy, we did not receive any notification of this mail rejection.
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, MIM Distributors was not 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 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.
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".
With this letter MIM Distributors requests
- Notification of all future denials of our mail to any prisoners in Bill Clements Unit
- Appeal of these specific instances of censorship
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Bill Clements Unit be handled in accordance with TDCJ policies and procedures, and federal and state law.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
MIM(Prisons) protests lack of notification
Show Text
MIM(Prisons) protests lack of notification
Show Text
Director's Review Committee
Bill Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
January 22, 2015
RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX and YYY
Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received letters from Mr. XXX and Mr YYY notifying us that they did not receive the publications we mailed to both of them in the past few months.
For Mr. XXX this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 41 November 2014 (mailed on December 10)
For Mr. YYY this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 35 November 2013 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 36 January 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 37 March 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 38 May 2014 (mailed on August 13)
Per your policy BP03.91 IVD: "The offender and the sender or addressee shall be provided a written statement of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within three business days after receiving the correspondence. The notice shall be given on Correspondence Denial Forms. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected correspondence to permit effective use of the appeal procedures." In violation of this policy, we did not receive any notification of this mail rejection.
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, MIM Distributors was not 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 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.
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".
With this letter MIM Distributors requests
- Notification of all future denials of our mail to any prisoners in Bill Clements Unit
- Appeal of these specific instances of censorship
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Bill Clements Unit be handled in accordance with TDCJ policies and procedures, and federal and state law.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140