MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Letter to Commissioner from MIM Distributors
Show Text
February 22, 2025
ATTN: Commissioner
Georgia Department of Corrections
300 Patrol Road
Forsyth, GA 31029
To the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections:
We are MIM(Prisons), a literary publisher and distributor of political materials to prisoners in the United States. We were recently made aware of materials we sent to prisoners at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia being returned without any notice or explanation. Upon attempting to contact both the warden at this facility as well as the prisoners whose mail was returned to us, we only received copies of the letters we sent with the word “BANNED” written on it, presumably by staff at Coffee CF. You will find scans of two of these returned envelopes enclosed herein. The prisoners in question are:
-- Prisoner A
-- Prisoner B
-- Prisoner C
We should not need to delve into laborious detail as to why these actions of the staff at Coffee CF are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Instead, we hope the following will suffice. First and foremost, these actions are in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” Furthermore, we would like to highlight that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. We would direct you to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on this matter. We would also like to highlight that as a publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
We are hoping that you can investigate this matter further in order to ensure that such acts of gross negligence and censorship are not allowed to proceed unchecked in the future and so that the prisoners listed above are allowed to receive the materials they are lawfully entitled to. We would also like to inform you that we are reaching out to several other organizations about this issue, including the Georgia Bureau of Investigations Office of Professional Standards as well as the United States Department of Justice. We look forward to hearing your response on this matter expediently so as to remedy the infringement of constitutional rights that has been committed by the staff at Coffee Correctional Facility.
Sincerely,
02/22/2025
Letter to Director of Office of Professional Standards from MIM Distributors
Show Text
February 22, 2025
ATTN: Director
Office of Professional Standards
3121 Panthersville Road
Decatur, GA 30034
To OPS Director Mays:
We are MIM(Prisons), a literary publisher and distributor of political materials to prisoners in the United States. We were recently made aware of materials we sent to prisoners at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia being returned without any notice or explanation. Upon attempting to contact both the warden at this facility as well as the prisoners whose mail was returned to us, we only received copies of the letters we sent with the word “BANNED” written on it, presumably by staff at Coffee CF. You will find scans of two of these returned envelopes enclosed herein. The prisoners in question are:
--Prisoner A
-- Prisoner B
-- Prisoner C
We should not need to delve into laborious detail as to why these actions of the staff at Coffee CF are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Instead, we hope the following will suffice. First and foremost, these actions are in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” Furthermore, we would like to highlight that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. We would direct you to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on this matter. We would also like to highlight that as a publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
We are hoping that you can investigate this matter further in order to ensure that such acts of gross negligence and censorship are not allowed to proceed unchecked in the future and so that the prisoners listed above are allowed to receive the materials they are lawfully entitled to. We would also like to inform you that we are simultaneously reaching out to the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections as well as the United States Department of Justice regarding this issue. We look forward to hearing your response on this matter expediently so as to remedy the infringement of constitutional rights that has been committed by the staff at Coffee Correctional Facility.
Sincerely,
02/22/2025
Letter to US DOJ Civil Rights Division from MIM Distributors
Show Text
February 22, 2025
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
To Whom It May Concern:
We are MIM(Prisons), a literary publisher and distributor of political materials to prisoners in the United States. We were recently made aware of materials we sent to prisoners at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia being returned without any notice or explanation. Upon attempting to contact both the warden at this facility as well as the prisoners whose mail was returned to us, we only received copies of the letters we sent with the word “BANNED” written on it, presumably by staff at Coffee CF. You will find scans of two of these returned envelopes enclosed herein. The prisoners in question are:
--Prisoner A
--Prisoner B
--Prisoner C
We should not need to delve into laborious detail as to why these actions of the staff at Coffee CF are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Instead, we hope the following will suffice. First and foremost, these actions are in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” Furthermore, we would like to highlight that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. We would direct you to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on this matter. We would also like to highlight that as a publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).
We are hoping that you can investigate this matter further in order to ensure that such acts of gross negligence and censorship are not allowed to proceed unchecked in the future and so that the prisoners listed above are allowed to receive the materials they are lawfully entitled to. We would also like to inform you that we are simultaneously reaching out to the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections as well as the Georgia Bureau of Investigations Office of Professional Standards regarding this issue. We look forward to hearing your response on this matter expediently so as to remedy the multiple infringements of constitutional rights that have been committed by the staff at Coffee Correctional Facility.
MIM Distributors Inquired into pattern of censoring all mail
Show Text
October 13, 2024
ATTN: William Danforth, Warden
Coffee Correctional Facility
PO Box 650
Nicholls, Georgia 31554
Rejected Mail
To Mr. Danforth:
We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We have recently sent a number of publications to multiple prisoners residing at your facility which have all been rejected by your mail room and sent back to us. The prisoners in question are:
--XXXXXXXX
First and foremost, we would like to address the fact that we have not received any communications from your facility about the rejected mail which was sent back to us. This is in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility. We would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on the relevant jurisprudence.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by GDOC policy 227.06 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. ZZZZZZ, Mr. YYYYYY, and Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors Inquired into pattern of censoring all mail
Show Text
October 13, 2024
ATTN: William Danforth, Warden
Coffee Correctional Facility
PO Box 650
Nicholls, Georgia 31554
Rejected Mail
To Mr. Danforth:
We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We have recently sent a number of publications to multiple prisoners residing at your facility which have all been rejected by your mail room and sent back to us. The prisoners in question are:
--XXXXXXXX
First and foremost, we would like to address the fact that we have not received any communications from your facility about the rejected mail which was sent back to us. This is in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility. We would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on the relevant jurisprudence.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by GDOC policy 227.06 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. ZZZZZZ, Mr. YYYYYY, and Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors Inquired into pattern of censoring all mail
Show Text
October 13, 2024
ATTN: William Danforth, Warden
Coffee Correctional Facility
PO Box 650
Nicholls, Georgia 31554
Rejected Mail
To Mr. Danforth:
We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We have recently sent a number of publications to multiple prisoners residing at your facility which have all been rejected by your mail room and sent back to us. The prisoners in question are:
--XXXXXXXX
First and foremost, we would like to address the fact that we have not received any communications from your facility about the rejected mail which was sent back to us. This is in direct violation of the Georgia Department of Corrections policy 227.06 which states, under section IV.G.2, that “if a letter is totally or partially rejected, a written notice signed by the official authorizing the rejection and stating the reasons, shall be provided to the sender and the addressee via Attachment 1, Mail Items Rejection Form.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility. We would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that this policy is in place specifically because it is a violation of our constitutional due process rights as publishers of literary materials to not notify us. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) for further reading on the relevant jurisprudence.
Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by GDOC policy 227.06 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. ZZZZZZ, Mr. YYYYYY, and Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
