MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Mailed Letter
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a notice of censorship of a letter addressed to XXX. We are the publishers and distributors of the letter. The letter contained basic information about our organization and included no objectionable material.
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).
Please provide an original reason for censorship of the letter, which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
Illinois Administrative Code title 20, section 525.140(h) requires written notification to the sender when mail is censored or denied. As the letter was returned unopened, this constitutes a blanket ban on our letter, which alone is a violation of our First Amendment rights. See Murphy v. Missouri Dep’t of Corrections, 372 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2004). The First Amendment guarantees us the right to correspond with prisoners. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).
In the alternative, we request the decision to censor the letter be vacated and the letter be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX. We note that your unwarranted censorship has caused us to incur the costs of mailing and time to respond to this request. We demand payment in the amount of thirty-five dollars ($35) for your failure to follow IDOC policies, the unwarranted censorship of the letter and our costs.
Prisoner filed grievance on mail tampering and won!
Show Text
I just got 2 Illinois Department of Corrections Material Review from each package you sent me for a Publication Review. This is the first time I ever got any notice from the Mail Room/Pub Review for ANYTHING. I've been raising the issue of unofficial censorship/mail tampering, because I NEVER get responses from organizations like MIM(Prisons), the Mid West Soaring Foundation, or ALC Chicago (Native American Cultural, Spiritual, Community Centers) or Prisoners Rights Research Project.
It's amusing that the Sept/Oct edition of ULK was delivered ONLY after I filed my first mail tampering grievance, that the May/June and July/August weren't delivered. I never received any notice of any other withholding of my mail until after we corroborated that mail was being tampered with and you sent the censorship packet (which was held a month and unstapled, copied, and I wasn't even notified).
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship without notification at Lawrence CC
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Lawrence Correctional Center
10930 Lawrence Rd
Sumner, IL 62466-4915
April 11, 2013
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX
Dear PRC,
On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a single sheet of paper to the above-named prisoner held at Lawrence Correctional Center. The contents of this paper was a list of mail that we had sent to Mr. XXX, and a brief letter asking him if he received it. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender" stamped on the envelope. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
Dating back to 2011, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. We have documentation that two (2) letters inquiring about receipt of mail have been returned in this same way, and a letter we sent to a prisoner informing him/her of legal means of appealing censorship was also censored in the same exact way. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also 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,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Prisoner notifies MIM(Prisons) of censorship and files appeals
Show Text
[This issue of ULK was mailed to this subscriber in an envelope with the magazine "MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial." When s/he writes of the article "Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial" s/he is likely referring to the magazine. Unfortunately the information given to prisoners about the actual mail that is being censored is so limited and obtuse that they often do not even know what they received.]
This correspondence is to inform you that once again this prison has selected to review to determine whether they would censor the March/April issue of Under Lock & Key based on the premise of an article titled "Amerika Prison on Trial." It has been under review now since 5/3/12. I have requested from the Prison Publication Review Committee to afford me with the regulation statute or law that the article violates. And yes, I will pursue the grievance process if the issue is ultimately censored. I would pursue a Civil Complaint, but this state requires a $150 filing fee, and I'm a lumpen-proletarian which should speak for itself.
However, I would like to know, have MIM(Prisons) received any other complaints of censorship or the withholding of Under Lock & Key by any political prisoners confined in the Illinois Department of Correction? The reason is that it would help a lot in the grievance process to see and compare whether it's just this prison that is practicing this policy?
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c5723.jpg){kind=link}