MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Office of the Warden
19025 Wiley’s Well Road
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock and Key Issue 65
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship regarding Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 65, addressed to the above prisoners.
You cite pages 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder,; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material allegedly tends to “incite riot or any form of violence or physical harm to any person.” Included in the notice were highlighted copies of pages from ULK 65.
On page 8, the article title “Black Panthers in Today’s Climate” is the only verbiage highlighted. This is clearly not objectionable content under any reasonable interpretation of the code. Again on page 9, the only material highlighted is “…Continued from previous page… Today” – again not objectionable.
Pages 11, 12, and 14 have the entire article “Debating Missouri Uprising” highlighted. A careful reading of the article clearly shows that there is no call to riot or any form of violence.” In fact over half of the highlighted article specifically counsels against such rioting or violence. This cannot be shown to be objectionable content, but in its context is commentary on a newsworthy event which specifically advises against violence or rioting.
Page 14 highlights the title “The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi is Merely the Latest CNN Opera.” Without more this is not objectionable content. Page 15 highlights the single word “Khashoggi,” again not in any way objectionable. Pages 16 and 17 highlight the continuation of the Khashoggi article. The entire Khashoggi article is taken in it’s entirety from a media news site. That the news site is one your censors may have political and philosophical differences cannot form the basis for censorship. In reading the entire article is it clear that there are no calls to riot or violence. There is one phrase which generally mentions “revolution;” however, that alone does not suffice to justify censorship. If it did then all American history relating the American Revolution would be censorable, an absurd outcome.
The notice provided is far from adequate in providing specificity as to the alleged offending material. Rather than highlighting entire article only certain key portions should be highlighted to identify the allegedly offending material. The manner in which you have provided notice serves as no notice whatsoever.
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 or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
We must insist that you cease your unlawful censorship and provide ULK 65 to the prisoners to whom it was addressed forthwith. Failure to do so may result in legal action, solely at our discretion.
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
02/05/2019
Prisoner appeals censorship
Show Text
The appeal log # is CVSP-X-19-00074 accepted at the first level of review on 5 Feb 19.
Per CCR Title 15 Processing of Publications the DAI has 30 days to issue a decision to either allow or disallow censorship of a publication. It has been 50 days since ULK 65 was "sent" to DAI for review. As such the Title 15 states that my appeal must be forwarded to the Director of Adult Institutions for a decision. My appeal is currently being reviewed by the Associate Warden of Operations.
I've long suspected that every time this institution's mailroom "forwards" a publication to DAI for review what they're really doing is just lying and breaking the law by just refusing to give people their publications. We'll find out soon enough.
02/22/2019
No decision from DAI after 65 days, Prisoner re-submits appeal
Show Text
First, I met with the mailroom lieutenant here yesterday concerning my appeal of the censorship of ULK 65. He stated that the Division of Adult Institutions in Sacramento still hasn't issued a decision as to allow or disallow ULK 65. He told me he persynally called the lieutenant responsible for reviewing the witholding of publications in Sacramento (DAI) and he told him that ULK 65 was forwarded to the Director of DAI for a decision, who subsequently kicked it back down to the aforementioned Lt in Sacramento who then shot it back to the Director again with no decision made as of yet! From what I was able to gather it seems that ULK 65 is a hot potato no one wants to touch.
According to the California Code of Regulations Title 15 3134.1 Processing of Publications (d) DAI shall provide a decision to allow or disallow the publication within 30 calendar days. It has now been 65 calendar days (December 18 2018) which means that DAI is currently violating my due process and first amendment rights. Per CCR Title 15 3137(c) Appeals Relating to Mail and Correspondence "Persons other than inmates should address any appeal relating to departmental policy and regulations to the Director of Division of Adult Institutions (DAI)..." Although you already sent a letter/appeal to the warden Jan.3, 2019, you can now appeal to DAI. "...Appeals that are not satisfactorily resolved at this level may be forwarded in writing to the Director of the DAI who shall provide a written response within 20 working days."
I'm gonna re-submit the appeal (#CVSP-x-19-00074) tonight and ask that since DAI is refusing to issue a decision they give me ULK 65 or send it to the director's level as my due process and first amendment rights are currently being violated.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Office of the Warden
19025 Wiley’s Well Road
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock and Key Issue 65
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship regarding Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 65, addressed to the above prisoners.
You cite pages 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder,; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material allegedly tends to “incite riot or any form of violence or physical harm to any person.” Included in the notice were highlighted copies of pages from ULK 65.
On page 8, the article title “Black Panthers in Today’s Climate” is the only verbiage highlighted. This is clearly not objectionable content under any reasonable interpretation of the code. Again on page 9, the only material highlighted is “…Continued from previous page… Today” – again not objectionable.
Pages 11, 12, and 14 have the entire article “Debating Missouri Uprising” highlighted. A careful reading of the article clearly shows that there is no call to riot or any form of violence.” In fact over half of the highlighted article specifically counsels against such rioting or violence. This cannot be shown to be objectionable content, but in its context is commentary on a newsworthy event which specifically advises against violence or rioting.
Page 14 highlights the title “The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi is Merely the Latest CNN Opera.” Without more this is not objectionable content. Page 15 highlights the single word “Khashoggi,” again not in any way objectionable. Pages 16 and 17 highlight the continuation of the Khashoggi article. The entire Khashoggi article is taken in it’s entirety from a media news site. That the news site is one your censors may have political and philosophical differences cannot form the basis for censorship. In reading the entire article is it clear that there are no calls to riot or violence. There is one phrase which generally mentions “revolution;” however, that alone does not suffice to justify censorship. If it did then all American history relating the American Revolution would be censorable, an absurd outcome.
The notice provided is far from adequate in providing specificity as to the alleged offending material. Rather than highlighting entire article only certain key portions should be highlighted to identify the allegedly offending material. The manner in which you have provided notice serves as no notice whatsoever.
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 or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
We must insist that you cease your unlawful censorship and provide ULK 65 to the prisoners to whom it was addressed forthwith. Failure to do so may result in legal action, solely at our discretion.
Letter to Warden asking about undelivered mail
Show Text
Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225
3 October 2016
RE: Disapproval of Publication
Ms. Seibel,
A week ago I had written to appeal the censorship of a publication, Under Lock & Key #51. Today I am writing to inquire about other mail that is going missing. From the reports we are receiving, no one at Chuckwalla Valley has received any mail from MIM Distributors in at least a month and a half.
Specifically, Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) has reported the last letter he received from MIM was from August 22. The list of mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX since then is:
Mr. XXXXXX has filed an Inmate 22 form, and in his interview was told by A. Salas that the mailroom has not received any mail from MIM Distributors.
I’m writing to find out what is happening to the mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Chuckwalla Valley? And if it is being censored why is there no notification from your department of this censorship?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
10/31/2016
Warden responds saying that no mail is being held, and all mail that arrived has been delivered Download Documentation
11/27/2016
Letter to Warden documenting that they are lying and reporting it to Internal Affairs, State Board
Show Text
Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225
26 November 2016
RE: Failure to Deliver Mail at Chuckawalla Valley SP
Ms. Seibel,
I received your letter from 31 October 2016, in which you state that “All of Mr. AAAAA’s mail that has arrived at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Mailroom, with the exception of [SF Bayview Newspaper Vol 41 Number 9] has been routed to him in a timely manner.” Yet I have personally sent mail to Mr. AAAAA as outlined in my previous letter that he reports not receiving. I also have signed statements from Mr. AAAAA, Mr. BBBBB and Mr. CCCCC stating that they have not received Under Lock & Key #52, mailed out on 10 October 2016. Neither MIM Distributors, nor the above mentioned subscribers have received notification of censorship of any of these pieces of mail.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, you continue to assert that the mailroom is delivering our mail to subscribers being held prisoner at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. Meanwhile, Mr. AAAAA is having his 602 appeals related to these incidents rejected for bogus reasons. Therefore, I am forwarding documentation regarding these incidents to the addresses below in hopes of getting a satisfactory resolution to these barriers to our ability to speak, communicate and associate freely without state censorship.
I will also be contacting individuals held at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison with this information and request that you ensure that mailroom staff deliver these letters to their intended recipients.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
cc: affected parties
Board of State and Community Corrections
Prison Law Office
Office of Internal Affairs, CDCR
This publication contained Disturbing and Offensive content in the entire publication. The content of this publication is a safety and security concern.[Download Documentation]
Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225
3 October 2016
RE: Disapproval of Publication
Ms. Seibel,
This letter is in response to the “DISAPPROVAL OF PUBLICATION” notice sent to MIM Distributors dated 16 September 2016 in regards to Under Lock & Key Issue # 51.
First, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your 5 July 2016 letter addressing previous mail censorship issues at your facility and working to make sure that we do not have those problems again. However, since then we have received reports from prisoners at Chuckwalla that the word is that the mailroom is returning all mail from MIM Distributors as of early September. Shortly after that the aforementioned disapproval notice for ULK 51, was received from Mailroom Lieutenant P. Fuller.
The reasoning given by Lt. Fuller for the disapproval was that “This publication contained Disturbing and Offensive content in the entire publication.” Government officials censoring correspondence because it disturbs or offends them is a violation of the First Amendment. Also see:
?"Government cannot regulate speech because it disagrees with the message conveyed." - Gentala v. City of Tucson, 213 F3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2000)
?"Government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." - Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp., 164 F3d 757 (2nd Cir. 1999)
In this light, I hope you will agree to reverse this decision, and to subsequently deliver Under Lock & Key 51 to each of the subscribers at Chuckwalla Valley State Prison.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
10/13/2016
Warden upheld censorship for inspiring work stoppage
This publication contained Disturbing and Offensive content in the entire publication. The content of this publication is a safety and security concern.
Subscriber submitted CDCR Form 22 inquiring about lack of mail
Show Text
I have a regular subscription to both the San Francisco Bay View Newspaper as well as to various MIM Distributors publications. I have not received mail from both distributors in months. I know these publications are frequently censored by CDC&R mailrooms. I would like to know if there is any ban on these publicaitons currently in effect.
09/27/2016
Response from mailroom staff A. Salas
Show Text
Bay View is currently under review and awaiting disapproval. If the newspaper is not disallowed then they will be issued to you, and if disallowed will be witheld and you will be issued an 1819 form.
09/28/2016
Subscriber asks about Centralized List of Disapproved Publications
Show Text
Is Bay View currently under Division of Adult Institutions review or CVSP review? Is BAy View under review for the Centralized List of Dissapproved Publications as a whole or only for individual issues? How come I never received 1819? What is the status of MIM Distributors? Where are my 1819s for MIM?
09/29/2016
Response from mailroom staff A. Salas
Show Text
Bay view is currently under Division of Adult Institutions review for all issues to be placed on the list of Dissaproved Centralized list. If a publication was recevied with your name on it then you would have been issued an 1819, so if you haven't recevied an 1819 then you haven't received a newspaper. MIM Distributors is also under review by DAI to be put on the Centralized Disapproved publications list.
10/01/2016
Subscriber files 602 grievance form [exact date unknown]
Show Text
I have attempted to file this 602 on two occassions. The first time I sent it in the Appeals Coordiantor returned it back to me saying that he was unable to accept it for review because the initial issue I included in the appeal (the disallowment of ULK 51) happened over 30 days ago, and according to CCR Title 15 I am only able to appeal something within 30 days of the incident. I then sent it back to him pointing out that the Title 15 specifically says that I can appeal something within 30 days of the incident or within 30 days of my first knowledge of its occurrence. Therefore I am well within my right since the mailroom never notified me and I only found out about this incident because I received your Unconfirmed Mail Form. I also pointed out how I'd already addressed all this in my appeal. Clearly then he must have either (a) not actually read the appeal (b) glossed over this in the appeal, or (c) most likely, he's just trying to illegally screen me out.
He subsequently returned it to me again stating that I am correct, however "...upon reviewing your note on teh CDC form 695, you are indicating the initial issue happened on 8/8/16 and did not have knowledge of it until later. Therefore, due to the fact that you have noted two separate issues on one appeal, you will have to rewrite to appeals per issue. Please correct your appeal so that it may be processed and ensure it is received in the Appeal's Office by 11/23/16..."
The Appeals Coordinator is referring to the fact that my 602 concerns ULK 51 and three other separate envelopes from you which I never received. I am also appealing the fact that I never received notification of the dissallowment. All this can be considered one issue and I am appealing it as such. I am also appealing the illegal censorship of Bay View. This is a second issue included.
The Title 15 says I cannot appeal two or more unrelated issues on a single appeal, but I can appeal a *related set of issues on a single appeal*. And this is what I"m doing. The AP knows this but he is obviously trying to screen me out. I will exsplain all this to the AP on Monday when I re-submit. Hopefully by then I will have more copies of the 602 so you can see what I'm talking about.
This publication contained Disturbing and Offensive content in the entire publication. The content of this publication is a safety and security concern.
Appeal to Warden on Behalf of MIM Distributors
Show Text
Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225
26 June 2016
RE: Unauthorized Vendor Mail
Ms. Seibel,
I am writing to inquire about a number of pieces of mail recently returned to MIM Distributors that were unopened and stamped, “RETURN TO SENDER UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR.” All of the mail in question were letters enclosed in #10 envelopes. This practice seemed to begin around May 2016. Two letters sent to Mr. XXX YYY (#123456) were returned in this manner; one from mid-May and one from mid-June. One letter from mid-June to Mr. AAA BBB (#246810) was also returned in this manner. Yet Mr. BBB reports not receiving a number of letters from MIM Distributors since his transfer to Chuckwalla in April. These other letters were not returned, nor was a notification of censorship sent to MIM Distributors, nor to Mr. BBB.
My questions are: What is the significance of this stamp “UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR”? And why were the letters in question not delivered to their intended recipients?
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this matter,
07/05/2016
Warden Responds Acknowledging error
Show Text
letter read in part:
"Mailroom staff have been made aware of the situation and will do everyting possiblbe to ensure this does not happen again."
"[CDCR] encouranges correspondence with persons outside the correctional facility. CVSP apologizes for the error and any inconvenience this may have caused."
