MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
(Unknown date) Magazine sent out for review
Show Text
[excerpt from 2/25/2013 letter] The mail room recently told me the "MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture" was sent to the Dome Building in Salem (to a Mr. R. Geer, 2575 Center St NE, Salem, Oregon) for review. It's been there since July. I recently kyted Mr. Geer and am waiting for a response.
04/13/2013
MIM Distributors inquires about multiple censorship incidents at SRCI
Show Text
Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
April 13, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI
Dear Mr. Geer,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.
MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.
➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.
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 prisoner, 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.
➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.
➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. 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.
We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CC: Affected parties
SRCI Warden
08/01/2014
Response from administrative office - MT13 is lost
Show Text
Prisoner received a response from Kelly Rather, of the Admiistrator office of Inmate and Community Advocacy. The MIM Theory 13 was sent to R. Geer for review. Now they can not find the magazine.
MPC Hoiland tells prisoner what mail has been processed for h from MIM Distributors Download Documentation
11/12/2012
Prisoner says s/he never received 10/8/12 mail from MIM Distributors Download Documentation
11/16/2012
MPC Hoiland says they're responsible for mail to be delivered from mailroom to prisoner Download Documentation
04/13/2013
MIM Distributors inquires about multiple censorship incidents at SRCI
Show Text
Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
April 13, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI
Dear Mr. Geer,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.
MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.
➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.
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 prisoner, 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.
➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.
➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. 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.
We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Mail room is playing dumb, even though they sent mail from same envelope for review
Show Text
The ULK 27 that came with MIM Theory 13, the mail room is playing stupid on it.
04/13/2013
MIM Distributors inquires about multiple censorship incidents at SRCI
Show Text
Mr. R. Geer, Publication Review
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
April 13, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx, Snake River CI
Dear Mr. Geer,
Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the above-named prisoner that three articles of mail we sent to him were never received. The articles of mail were a magazine titled MIM Theory 13, and two publications titled Under Lock & Key issues No. 27 (July/August 2012) and 28 (September/October 2012). Under Lock & Key 27 (ULK 27) and MIM Theory 13 were mailed to Mr. xxx from MIM Distributors on July 27, 2012. They were mailed together in the same envelope, via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS. The publication ULK 28 was sent on October 2, 2012 via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS.
MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship incidents of any of these three publications. Mr. xxx investigated the censorship further, and the mail room staff at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) claim they never received ULK 27or ULK 28. They informed him that MIM Theory 13 was mailed to Mr. Geer in July 2012, and that it is still under review. I would like to highlight the illegality of these incidents.
➤ First, of course, is the fact that MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship or review of these materials via the process outlined in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your own mail rules state at chapter 291-131-0037
(6) Correspondence and Publications: When, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non-inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejection of mail, including the reasons, on a Mail Violation Notice (CD 618a) for correspondence, or a Publication Violation Notice for a publication. If the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the notice shall advise that an independent review of the rejection may be obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice. Mail rejected based on written or pictorial content shall be returned intact to the sender. The rejected portion(s) of the mail shall be photocopied and retained pending any administrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy shall be maintained according to archive standards.
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 prisoner, 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.
➤ A second problem I would like to highlight is the claim that Under Lock & Key 27 was not received, but MIM Theory 13 is in review. These two publications were mailed in the same envelope. Mr. xxx was even provided with a list of all the mail that has been processed for him from MIM Distributors, and ULK 27 was not on the list. This is an unreasonable claim.
➤ Lastly, Mr. xxx informed us in February 2013 that MIM Theory 13 is under review by Mr. Geer, and has been under review since July 2012. 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.
We recently re-sent Mr. xxx the publications Under Lock & Key issues 27 and 28. We are hopeful that he received them without any illegal hangups or unjust censorship. We appreciate your time and consideration in assuring SRCI staff are upholding the policies, procedures and law which they are obliged to work under. We also anticipate your determination MIM Theory 13.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Reversal because MIM Distributors is authorized publisher and not STG Download Documentation
05/01/2008
Overturned upon review
Show Text
Oh, MIM! I had my adminstrative review on the mail which was considered 'STG A Call To Action.' The violation was overturned. Apparently the 'Call to Action' was the suggestion that study group participants 'please step up' in their response/participation. The mailroom clerk did not correlate the request with the study group, I guess, even though the paper clearly says 'study group course.' Fortunately, the reviewers were more reasonable and I commend them for that. The Administrative Mail reviews at SRCI are now handled by Ms. Blackletter. I'm also enclosing my appeal of Administrative Review regarding MN #338, which was not overturned. On Under Lock & Key a prisoner calls for comrades to not participate in the snitch program and this is why the paper was violated
Letter to Mail Admin, cc: SRCI Functional Unit Mgr
Show Text
Randy Greer
Mail Administrator, OR DOC
2575 Center Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
22 February 2008
Dear Mr. Greer,
I?m writing you directly regarding some recent returned mail, as it seems that things have escalated to the point of unsubstantiated censorship again at SRCI. In addition, it appears that the staff there has resorted to harassment of inmates for their (assumed) political beliefs. I would like to request an administrative review on both of these decisions, and an investigation into the harassment.
I?ve enclosed the two recent Mail Violation Notices, both claiming MIM Distributors is an STG. The first states that MIM Distributors is an ?Unauthorized Publisher.? Is there something we can do to notify staff of MIM?s authorized publisher status on a regular basis, like posting a list in the mailroom or something? It seems that I have had to write to you regarding this claim every six months or so.
The second notice states ?STG A Call to Action.? Is staff member Moorebe claiming that MIM is a security threat group? As I?ve previously explained, MIM literature expressly discourages our readers from any activity that is illegal, violent or counterproductive in any other way. We do call people to take political action, as any political organization does. Is that now a violation of the department?s policies?
I look forward to your response to this matter, and thank you for taking your time to investigate these matters for us.
Sincerely,
04/29/2008
Reversal because MIM Distributors is authorized publisher and not STG Download Documentation
letter of appeal to Functional Unit Manager
Show Text
Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914
9 December 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.
The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.
The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.
Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.
While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
12/14/2007
Prisoner questions legality of censorship comparing to other news Download Documentation
letter of appeal to Functional Unit Manager
Show Text
Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914
9 December 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.
The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.
The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.
Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.
While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.
letter of appeal to Functional Unit Manager
Show Text
Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914
9 December 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to XXXXX XXXXXX. Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.
The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.
The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.
Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.
While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.
letter of appeal to Functional Unit Manager
Show Text
Functional Unit Manager
Snake River Correctional Institution
777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, OR 97914
9 December 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is in response to two publication violation notices received by our office for literature that was sent to XXXXX XXXXXX. Two issues of MIM Notes were censored for allegedly violating Code 2 e and j on pages 10 and 11. Pages 10 and 11 of these two newspapers contain a section called Under Lock & Key, which both contain letters from prisoners in California regarding conditions in prisons there.
The first code (2e) forbids materials that ?plans for activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives.? It is our clearly stated policy that we do not encourage our readers to break the law, and in the case of prisoners the rules at their prison. It is our belief that MIM Notes 344 does not discuss any plans that would violate Oregon DOC?s rules. If there is something in that issue of MIM Notes that does propose violating your rules, please notify us of specifically where and what rule is potentially being violated so that we can avoid this problem in the future.
The second code (2j) prohibits ?inflammatory material.? Code 2j is purposefully vague in not defining the term inflamatory. It is our understanding that in this context inflammatory is taken to mean ?arousing to action or rebellion? and not the more benign definition of ?arousing passion or strong emotion.? The latter definition would restrict most anyone with something important to say from communicating with people in Oregon?s prisons.
Assuming the definition of inflammatory to be ?arousing to action or rebellion,? I would still take issue with the assertion that encouraging action can be legally prohibited. Of course, it is your job to keep order within SRCI, and so your concern is to prevent disturbances among prisoners. If you feel that articles about conditions in California prisons will spark rebellion among Oregon prisoners, then I would suggest investigating the actions of your staff that might be behind such a reaction. Regardless, you cannot shoot the messenger. Stating that the truth will incite rebellion is not a legally sound way to prevent a party from expressing the truth.
While I realize I do not have the ability to challenge the legitimacy of Code 2j through this avenue, I do believe that it is being used, in this case, beyond what is reasonable and legal. Clearly, political speech is protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions such as Procunier v. Martinez, and Code 2j cannot be used in violation of these laws.
Randy Greer
Mail Administrator, OR DOC
2575 Center Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
18 February 2007
Dear Mr. Greer,
This letter is in response to the censorship of two magazines (What is MIM? and MIM Theory No. 4) sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX at SRCI in January 2007. The magazines were sent by MIM Distributors, who are also the publishers of the magazines. The reported reason for this censorship was ?foreign substance on magazine? (see enclosed Mail Violation Notice). This is apparently a reference to a small brown dot on the center of the front cover of the MIM Theory No. 4 magazine (see enclosed photocopy).
Mr. Greer, you may be aware of a similar struggle we had at TRCI last year regarding a copy of MIM Theory that was deemed ?used? and rejected. While we were not able to establish a clear standard for how ?new? vs. ?used? materials are judged, MIM Distributors has responded by ceasing its previous practice of sending damaged materials to prisoners in Oregon that would not be useable on newstands or in bookstores. Despite this, we have encountered this problem again with this recent incident. It is also unclear why the second magazine was censored.
I understand that we may not seek administrative review for these incidents. But it does seem clear that there is a concerted effort to find excuses to prevent MIM?s publications from being received by prisoners in many of the ODOC?s facilities. So I am writing this letter to document this incident for yourself and the SRCI mailroom in hopes that you can work to ensure a more reasonable enforcement of the mail policy.
