MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Notice of Confiscated Property sent to prisoner
Show Text
"Suspected drug laced paper sent in via mail"
04/01/2024
I.I. Agrees no drugs on paper
Show Text
Sometime in April the prisoner was pulled out of the law library and questioned in the shakedown room by Institutional Investigator Cochran. I.I. had test the mail for drugs and it came up negative. The prisoner pointed out that it was clearly ink from the paper being folded and mailed and I.I. staff agreed.
05/06/2024
Prisoner files Request for Access to Public Record
Show Text
1. Copy of original confiscated letter by I.I. on 3/21/2024 from MIM Publishers to be preserved for litigation.
2. Camera footage from I.I.'s shakedown room with me from April 17, 2024 7am-9am
3. I want test results preserved from the 3/21/24 letter that was confiscated.
05/16/2024
Response to request from Litigation Liaison
Show Text
"The confiscation sheet is attached for your records and will be scanned with this into your file. OII has preserved the video of the interview, and you were also explained the process in the interview. The item was tested and determined not to be a narcotic and the item was given back to you."
05/17/2024
Response to Chloe Bookout Litigation Liaison
Show Text
To preserve the Original letter from MIM Distributors that I.I. confiscated on 3/21/24 citing it was drug laced. I.I. released a copy of the letter to me on April 17, 2024, telling me that it was tested and results came back negative. Charges of trafficking were dismissed. This original letter will show it only contained smeared ink on the letter from the print, folded and mailed 2000 miles. The original letter is needed for litigation in case NO. 1:23-cv.01964-JRS.TAB
Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).
The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).
The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).
The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).
The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated November 11, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The only reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG FRONT PAGE BLACK PANTHERS”. We would like to point out that the Black Panthers are not mentioned anywhere, in writing or in illustration, within the publication aside from a brief reference to the Black Panther Party’s Breakfast for Schoolchildren program. We emphatically assert that this does not meet the standards required to violate Mr. XXXXXX’s First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
ON June 20 2023 I receive notice of confiscated newspaper from the mailroom Chambers on state form 11984 which came from the mailroom No. 81, Spring 2023 was confiscated and also denied on "STG" front page New Afrika. Chambers then sent my newspaper to I.I. Chambers just says "STG" + then confiscated my newspaper. Chambers has a problem (a personal problem) with MIM Distributors. If this newspaper was considered propaganda to the U.S. Postal Service tehy would not allow MIM the privilege to use the U.S. Postal system without some type of penalties imposed on MIM. Chambers continues to censor MIM publications and also I.I.
[State the relieve that you are seeking ]
1. for Chambers and I.I. to release this publication to me
2. for Chambers and I.I. to stop censoring MIM publications
3. No retaliation from Chambers and I.I. for filing this grievance
4. for Chambers to notify MIM that their publication was confiscated so MIM can appeal
5. for any and all just proper relief
10/20/2023
Case opened with Grievance Manager
12/04/2023
Grievance Manager upholds decision to censor
Show Text
Your grievance appeal and all attached documents have been reviewed. I've reviewed online issues of the newspaper and while I found no STG related information I did not that it has separatist philosophy and for that reason only I concur with the Facility level responses. Grievance Appeal Denied. Mr. I. Randolph is the Final Reviewing Authority Per Offender Grievance Process 00 02 301.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
Re: Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Action Taken for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 81 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated July 17, 2023.
The listed reason for censorship is “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA, LAST BLACK PANTHERS.”
Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns prison, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship],” as you have done so here.
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason” (emphasis added). Should you decide censor ULK on different grounds, we expect to be notified.
We request the decision to withhold issue 81 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.
Your previous refusal to detail the terms of censorship is patently unconstitutional. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
26 May 2023
RE: 16 May Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of five notices dated and postmarked 5/16/2023 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is responding to those notices because we do not agree with the decision to censor our mail.
All five notices give the reason: “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA"
As I’ve notified you of in my previous letters, there is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons. In this case the reason cited is “FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA”. New Afrika is a name for people of African descent who were brought to the new world of North America to be slaves and continue to live in this country. New Afrika is not a Security Threat Group, it is a nationality made up of diverse people.
I never received a response to my previous appeals, but I do know that the prisoners did not receive the literature, so I am assuming that you upheld the previous decisions that our mail was “STG” material. Therefore I am requesting the IDOC’s rules that defines how material can be deemed to be “STG” so that we can be better equipped to avoid these problems in the future.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver the mail in question (which I believe to be Under Lock & Key Issue 81) to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
Sincerely,
05/28/2023
Prisoner Files Offender Grievance form 45471
Show Text
On May 16, 2023 MIM Distributors sent me a newspaper, however that newspapr was confiscated, Spring 2023 No. 81. Citing OII STG Front page New Afrika. My question to Ms. Chambers, what does New Afrika have to do with STG? MIM Under Lock & Key does not promote racism and/or religious oppression and the superiority of one race/religion/political group over another. STG cannot be used as an excuse to censor people for their political beliefs. Also on the notice of report of action taken on correspondence why wasn't I informed that I had a right to appeal your decision?
[State the relief that you are seeking]
I would like for Ms. Chambers to stop using STG as an excuse to censor my mail, and to forward my newspaper to me immediately.
I don't expect my grievance to be responded to which is why I'm forwarding a copy to the courts keeping them abreast of my situation.
If you haven't forwarded MIM ULK 81 to I.I. then please forward it on to me. You received it several days ago. I'm sure you're going to confiscate citing "STG." Or should I say you've already retaliated and forwarded onto I.I.
Please respond.
Thank you
Action: First, no retaliation. Second I have not confiscated anything as of 8:00AM 5/15/23. Nor has anything been sent to OII. Thank You.
By: [signed] Chambers 5-15-26 [sic]
05/19/2023
prisoner appealed
Show Text
On 5-16-23, I received a notice and report of action on Correspondence State Form 11984. This was a notice by Mailroom Chambers that material from MIM Distributors ULK 81, Spring 2023 had been confiscated and denied OII "STG" front page New Afrika. On 5-14-23 I sent Chambers a request asking her if she had already confiscated MIM's No. 81 and forwarded to Internal Investigations citing "STG." Chambers responded on 5-15-26 as of 8:00 am 5-15-23, I have not confiscated anything, nor has anything been sent to OII. Chambers comments are very subject and cannot be believable as the MIM No. 81 arrived at Pendleton prior to 5-15-23. Say it did arrive after 8:00 on 5-15-23, Chambers doesn't have time to stop what she is doing, get the MIM material to I.I., and I.I. doesn't have time to go through the entire material which would stop what they are doing. Then Chambers would have to stop what she is doing to communicate with I.I., then type up a notice and report of action, then put it in the mail so I can receive it on 5-16-23. I'm sorry folks. This just isn't possible for all of this to transpire in a single day. This is pure censorship and retaliation by mailroom Chambers and Internal Investigations.
Chambers + I.I. continue time after time to censor MIM's material by allegedly citing "STG." This just isn't the case. They continue to block MIM's material from coming in. MIM's material/books that keep getting censored is knowledgeable material and will allow me to grow as a person but how can I when Chambers and I.I. continue to censor it.
Chambers + I.I. Houchins continue to cause me great pain + stress.
State the relief you are seeking:
1. I want MIM's No.81 to be released to me.
2. I want Chambers + I.I. Houchins to stop censoring and confiscating MIM's material citing "STG."
3. I want Chambers + I.I. Houchins to stop retaliating against me for writing this grievance and past grievances against them.
4. For an and all just proper relief.
05/26/2023
MIM Distributors appealed
Show Text
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
26 May 2023
RE: 16 May Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of five notices dated and postmarked 5/16/2023 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is responding to those notices because we do not agree with the decision to censor our mail.
All five notices give the reason: “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA"
As I’ve notified you of in my previous letters, there is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons. In this case the reason cited is “FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA”. New Afrika is a name for people of African descent who were brought to the new world of North America to be slaves and continue to live in this country. New Afrika is not a Security Threat Group, it is a nationality made up of diverse people.
I never received a response to my previous appeals, but I do know that the prisoners did not receive the literature, so I am assuming that you upheld the previous decisions that our mail was “STG” material. Therefore I am requesting the IDOC’s rules that defines how material can be deemed to be “STG” so that we can be better equipped to avoid these problems in the future.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver the mail in question (which I believe to be Under Lock & Key Issue 81) to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
26 May 2023
RE: 16 May Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of five notices dated and postmarked 5/16/2023 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is responding to those notices because we do not agree with the decision to censor our mail.
All five notices give the reason: “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA"
As I’ve notified you of in my previous letters, there is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons. In this case the reason cited is “FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA”. New Afrika is a name for people of African descent who were brought to the new world of North America to be slaves and continue to live in this country. New Afrika is not a Security Threat Group, it is a nationality made up of diverse people.
I never received a response to my previous appeals, but I do know that the prisoners did not receive the literature, so I am assuming that you upheld the previous decisions that our mail was “STG” material. Therefore I am requesting the IDOC’s rules that defines how material can be deemed to be “STG” so that we can be better equipped to avoid these problems in the future.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver the mail in question (which I believe to be Under Lock & Key Issue 81) to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
26 May 2023
RE: 16 May Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of five notices dated and postmarked 5/16/2023 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is responding to those notices because we do not agree with the decision to censor our mail.
All five notices give the reason: “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA"
As I’ve notified you of in my previous letters, there is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons. In this case the reason cited is “FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA”. New Afrika is a name for people of African descent who were brought to the new world of North America to be slaves and continue to live in this country. New Afrika is not a Security Threat Group, it is a nationality made up of diverse people.
I never received a response to my previous appeals, but I do know that the prisoners did not receive the literature, so I am assuming that you upheld the previous decisions that our mail was “STG” material. Therefore I am requesting the IDOC’s rules that defines how material can be deemed to be “STG” so that we can be better equipped to avoid these problems in the future.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver the mail in question (which I believe to be Under Lock & Key Issue 81) to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
26 May 2023
RE: 16 May Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of five notices dated and postmarked 5/16/2023 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is responding to those notices because we do not agree with the decision to censor our mail.
All five notices give the reason: “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA"
As I’ve notified you of in my previous letters, there is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons. In this case the reason cited is “FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA”. New Afrika is a name for people of African descent who were brought to the new world of North America to be slaves and continue to live in this country. New Afrika is not a Security Threat Group, it is a nationality made up of diverse people.
I never received a response to my previous appeals, but I do know that the prisoners did not receive the literature, so I am assuming that you upheld the previous decisions that our mail was “STG” material. Therefore I am requesting the IDOC’s rules that defines how material can be deemed to be “STG” so that we can be better equipped to avoid these problems in the future.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver the mail in question (which I believe to be Under Lock & Key Issue 81) to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
5 April 2023
RE: Censorship for “Books Saturated”
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of a notice dated and postmarked 3/22/2023 from staffmember Chambers of Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to that decision. The reason given for the censorship was “BOOKS SATURATED.”
Did the package get wet during the shipping process? We are certain that no wet books were mailed to XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) from MIM Distributors. So if the merchandise was damaged during transit can you please return it so we can replace it. If the book is not damaged beyond use, then we would request an appeal so that Mr. XXXXXX can receive the book.
Either way can you please clarify the condition of the book. Staffmember Chambers has regularly rejected literature mailed by MIM Distributors for frivolous reasons in the past and we are concerned that this is the case again with the book Represent Yourself in Court, which was mailed to Mr. XXXXXX on 8 March 2023.
Sincerely,
04/28/2023
Appeal Review upheld decision
Show Text
Elise Gallaghar, Appeal Review Officer, wrote back to say "These materials were appropriately confiscated per policy"
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
29 November 2022
RE: Ongoing censorship of mail to Pendleton CF
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of three notices dated and postmarked 11/21/2022 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to those decisions. And to inquire about my previous appeal submitted 1 September 2022.
All three recent notices were for the rejection of our newsletter, Under Lock & Key issue 79. The reason given is: “DENIED OII PG 12 LOWER RT - STG: AMIERIKKKA"(sic)
There is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons (see my 1 Sept appeal letter). In this case the reason cited is the spelling of “Amerikkka”. This spelling is a political statement about the nature of the nation commonly known as America. Such political speech is protected, and not a valid justification for state-sponsored censorship.
Per Turner vs. Safley, the STG label may be used to censor mail if and only if it poses a clear and present threat to safety and security. Since there is nothing in Under Lock & Key promoting illegal activities or threatening harm to any person or persons, the STG label does not suffice to censor this publication.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver this issue, and previous mail that I wrote to you about, to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
29 November 2022
RE: Ongoing censorship of mail to Pendleton CF
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of three notices dated and postmarked 11/21/2022 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to those decisions. And to inquire about my previous appeal submitted 1 September 2022.
All three recent notices were for the rejection of our newsletter, Under Lock & Key issue 79. The reason given is: “DENIED OII PG 12 LOWER RT - STG: AMIERIKKKA"(sic)
There is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons (see my 1 Sept appeal letter). In this case the reason cited is the spelling of “Amerikkka”. This spelling is a political statement about the nature of the nation commonly known as America. Such political speech is protected, and not a valid justification for state-sponsored censorship.
Per Turner vs. Safley, the STG label may be used to censor mail if and only if it poses a clear and present threat to safety and security. Since there is nothing in Under Lock & Key promoting illegal activities or threatening harm to any person or persons, the STG label does not suffice to censor this publication.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver this issue, and previous mail that I wrote to you about, to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
29 November 2022
RE: Ongoing censorship of mail to Pendleton CF
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of three notices dated and postmarked 11/21/2022 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to those decisions. And to inquire about my previous appeal submitted 1 September 2022.
All three recent notices were for the rejection of our newsletter, Under Lock & Key issue 79. The reason given is: “DENIED OII PG 12 LOWER RT - STG: AMIERIKKKA"(sic)
There is a pattern of Pendleton labeling MIM Distributors’ literature “STG” for spurious reasons (see my 1 Sept appeal letter). In this case the reason cited is the spelling of “Amerikkka”. This spelling is a political statement about the nature of the nation commonly known as America. Such political speech is protected, and not a valid justification for state-sponsored censorship.
Per Turner vs. Safley, the STG label may be used to censor mail if and only if it poses a clear and present threat to safety and security. Since there is nothing in Under Lock & Key promoting illegal activities or threatening harm to any person or persons, the STG label does not suffice to censor this publication.
Once again, I am requesting that you deliver this issue, and previous mail that I wrote to you about, to their intended recipients as soon as you are able to.
The articles were mailed back to MIM Distributors by the prisoner, the section marked by the mailroom as "STG/Hate Speech" reads:
“If we fast forward from the time period discussed above to the 1980s we see the formation of the Maoist Internationalist Movement as well as a consolidation of theorists coming out of the legacy of the Black Liberation Army and probably the RYM as well. Both groups spoke widely of a Black or New Afrikan proletariat, which dominated the nation. MIM later moved away from this line and began entertaining Huey P. Newton’s prediction of mass lumpenization, at least in regard to the internal semi-colonies. Today we find ourselves in a position were we must draw a line between ourselves and those who speak of an exploited New Afrikan population. If the U.$. economy only existed within U.$. borders then we would have to conclude that the lower incomes received by the internal semi-colonies overall is the source of all capitalist wealth. But in today’s global economy, employed New Afrikans have incomes that are barely different from those of white Amerikans compared to the world’s majority, putting most in the top 10% by income.”
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
1 September 2022
RE: Censorship of mail to Pendleton CF
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of two notices dated and postmarked 8/23/2022 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to those decisions.
Firstly, the fields for “Date of postmark on correspondence” and “Type of Correspondence” are blank, so we can only guess what mail is being censored in these cases.
There is photo copy of a letter to Mr. XXXX postmarked 8/6/2022. The notification with Mr. XXXX’s name on it gives for the reasoning for censorship: “DENIED II STG FOLK NATION NAZI”. There is nothing in the letter we sent about folk nation or nazis, therefore this claim is unfounded.
We assume that the notification for Mr. YYYY is for our newsletter, Under Lock & Key 78. The reason given for censorship: “DENIED II 5PT STAR ALL SEEING “5””. I honestly have no idea what that means. There is no page number given or explanation for how this is a threat to safety and security as required by Turner vs. Safley. Therefore we are requesting that this be delivered to the intended recipients, or that some further explanation be provided.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
1 September 2022
RE: Censorship of mail to Pendleton CF
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of two notices dated and postmarked 8/23/2022 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to those decisions.
Firstly, the fields for “Date of postmark on correspondence” and “Type of Correspondence” are blank, so we can only guess what mail is being censored in these cases.
There is photo copy of a letter to Mr. XXXX postmarked 8/6/2022. The notification with Mr. XXXX’s name on it gives for the reasoning for censorship: “DENIED II STG FOLK NATION NAZI”. There is nothing in the letter we sent about folk nation or nazis, therefore this claim is unfounded.
We assume that the notification for Mr. YYYY is for our newsletter, Under Lock & Key 78. The reason given for censorship: “DENIED II 5PT STAR ALL SEEING “5””. I honestly have no idea what that means. There is no page number given or explanation for how this is a threat to safety and security as required by Turner vs. Safley. Therefore we are requesting that this be delivered to the intended recipients, or that some further explanation be provided.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
1 September 2022
RE: Censorship of mail to Pendleton CF
To Whom It May Concern,
We are in receipt of two notices dated and postmarked 8/23/2022 from Pendleton Correctional Facility’s mail room. This letter is to request an appeal to those decisions.
Firstly, the fields for “Date of postmark on correspondence” and “Type of Correspondence” are blank, so we can only guess what mail is being censored in these cases.
There is photo copy of a letter to Mr. XXXX postmarked 8/6/2022. The notification with Mr. XXXX’s name on it gives for the reasoning for censorship: “DENIED II STG FOLK NATION NAZI”. There is nothing in the letter we sent about folk nation or nazis, therefore this claim is unfounded.
We assume that the notification for Mr. YYYY is for our newsletter, Under Lock & Key 78. The reason given for censorship: “DENIED II 5PT STAR ALL SEEING “5””. I honestly have no idea what that means. There is no page number given or explanation for how this is a threat to safety and security as required by Turner vs. Safley. Therefore we are requesting that this be delivered to the intended recipients, or that some further explanation be provided.
This issue about holding my newsletter Under Lock and Key already been addressed by the higher court and my news letters Under Lock and Key shouldn't be confiscated. This is a First Amendment violation. Any lateness should be charged to the PCF.
08/18/2021
Warden upholds censorship for mentioning La Raza
Show Text
I have asked OII to review this decision. This item is being denied due to literature regarding the Security Threat Group La Raza. I find this decision to be in keeping with facility interest and promoting safety and security for the facility.
Prisoner informed MIMD of censorship of item for "safety and security"
Show Text
no notification to MIM Dist. from admin
12/10/2019
Prisoner submits informal grievance to adminstration
Show Text
On 12-10-19 I wrote a request slip (informal grievance) to mail room L. Chambers: "On 12-4-19 I had mail confiscated from "MIM Distributors." I have been receiving mail from "MIM Distributors" for several months. I am asking to receive the confiscated mail from "MIM Distributors" and that future mail will not be delayed. Thank you for looking into this.
12/11/2019
Prisoner submits Offender Grievance Form
Show Text
On 12-11-19 I filled out an Offender Grievance Form: On 12-4-19 I had mail confiscated from "MIM Distributors." I have been receiving mail from "MIM Distributors" for several months. I wrote an informal complaint to the mail room on 12-10-19 (see attachment). On 12-4-19 I wrote an informal complaint to I.I (Internal Investigations) asking, what was confiscated and why cannont I receive it? I have not received a response. I am asking to receive the confiscated mail from "MIM Distributors" and that future mail will not be delayed.
01/16/2020
FORM FILED: prisoner informs MIMD of appeal results: censorship upheld
01/27/2020
MIM Distributors appeals lack of notification to publisher
Show Text
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
January 25, 2020
Indiana Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
302 West Washington St E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Appeal of Censorship of unnamed item
XXX #XXX
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been notified that an unnamed item has been censored by the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC). We received this information from the above-named prisoner and we received no notice from IDOC. Mr.XXX has indicated the item was censored based on “safety and security” reasons on 12/4/19, and Mr. XXX’s appeal of this censorship was denied on 1/16/20.
CLAIM 1:
IDOC MAIL POLICY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW
Federal case law is clear: the publisher must be notified by prison authorities of any censorship of publications and must be given a meaningful opportunity to appeal the censorship. It is clear IDOC policy 02-01-103 provides no such option and is unconstitutional on its face.
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).
Setting aside the unconstitutionality of the IDOC Offender Correspondence policies and procedures, there were still failures of IDOC staff at multiple levels regarding this censorship incident.
CLAIM 2:
POLICY 02-01-103 WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN RE: XIII. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON CORRESPONDENCE
Policy and Administrative Procedure 02-01-103 states:
XIII. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON CORRESPONDENCE (See Operational
Procedure):
Whenever a decision is made to delay, censor, copy, or withhold any correspondence, the offender is to be informed within two (2) working days of the action, except as indicated in Procedure VIII. D or Procedure IX D State Form 11984, NOTICE AND REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON CORRESPONDENCE, shall be used for this purpose. The staff person completing this form shall ensure that the following information is contained in the notice:
A. A complete description of the article being withheld;
B. The specific reason for the action;
C. The name of the sender;
D. The date of any postmark;
E. The date the correspondence was received or deposited at the facility or program;
F. The proposed disposition to be made of the correspondence;
G. The name of the person who made the decision; and,
H. The fact that the action may be challenged through the grievance procedure.
Yet Mr. XXX was not informed of A. A complete description of the article being held. To our knowledge, Mr. XXX was only told that the item was called “MIM Distributors March 2012.” This is not the title of any publication of MIM Distributors. To the best of our knowledge, the item being censored is titled “Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons,” yet we don’t know for sure. The lack of description of the item being censored causes unnecessary confusion and obstructs Mr. XXX’s access to the grievance process.
This not only is a violation of IDOC policy, it also is a violation of not only Mr. XXXX’s First Amendment rights to communication with society outside of prisons, as well as Mr. XXX’s Eighth Amendment right to due process. This is grounds for legal suit against your Department.
CLAIM 3:
POLICY 02-01-103 WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN RE: CENSORSHIP BASED ON POLITICAL VIEWS
I trust you are already aware of your Department’s own mail policies, yet I will reiterate them here for your convenience. According to Policy 02-01-103, there are specific reasons why incoming mail may be censored. MIM Distributors does not believe its material violates any mail rules of IDOC, and the censored item does not fit the list of permissible censorship.
Section “VIII. OPENING OF CORRESPONDENCE” states, in part:
Incoming correspondence is not to be censored, copied, withheld, disclosed to another person or otherwise interfered with in regard to its prompt delivery unless:
A. The Department has reasonable grounds to believe the correspondence:
1. Poses an immediate danger to the safety of an individual or a serious threat to the security of the facility or program;
Section “XIV. INTERFERENCE WITH AN OFFENDER'S CORRESPONDENCE” states, in part:
An offender's correspondence may not be censored, copied, delayed or disallowed for delivery solely on the basis of the sender's or receiver's apparent moral, political, ethical, ethnic or religious values or attitudes, veracity or choice of words.
Section “XIX. PRINTED MATTER” states, in part:
Printed matter which threatens the security of the public, facility, or program, contains multiple copies, or has an invoice indicating an amount due shall be considered prohibited property. Examples of the types of materials that are considered prohibited property and shall be excluded include, but are not limited to, those:
A. Depicting or describing procedures for the construction or use of weapons, ammunition, bombs or incendiary devices;
B. Depicting, describing or encouraging methods of escape from correctional facilities, or contains blueprints, drawings or similar descriptions of correctional facilities;
C. Depicting or describing procedures for the brewing of alcoholic beverages or the manufacture of drugs;
D. Written in code;
E. Depicting, describing or encouraging activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption;
F. Encouraging or instructing in the commission of criminal activity; or,
G. Any printed matter that features nudity or any other material depicting nudity.
H. Containing sexually explicit material which by its nature or content poses a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the facility or facilitates criminal activity.
We believe that upon thoughtful review of the censored material, you will see that IDOC staff and administration are fact obstructing Mr. XXX’s Constitutionally protected rights, and ignoring IDOC’s own policy and procedures.
We request a response to this letter within fifteen (15) days of receipt. Failure to do so may result in litigation against the IDOC. Alternatively, the decision to censor the material intended for Mr. XXX from MIM Distributors may be reversed and the material delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.
Sincerely,
B Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Indiana Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
302 West Washington St E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key March/April 2018 Issue 61
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been notified the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) has been censored by the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC). The notice was received from a prisoner and no notice has been received from IDOC. Mr. XXXXXX has indicated the issue of ULK was censored based on inmate to inmate correspondence. IDOC policy 02-01-103 (V) is clear on its face that the publication does not constitute offender to offender correspondence.
Federal case law is clear, the publisher must be notified by prison authorities of any censorship of publications and must be given a meaningful to appeal the censorship. It is clear IDOC policy 02-01-103 provides no such option and is unconstitutional on its face.
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 require the IDOC to provide notice of censorship, with reference to the specific content which is allegedly objectionable within fifteen (15) days of this letter. Failure to do so may result in litigation against the IDOC.
In the alternative, the decision to censor the issue referenced above may be vacated and delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.
