MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
We are in receipt of a Notice of Incoming Publication Denial relating to prisoner notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice provides no articulable reasons for or specific references to objectionable content. The boilerplate language of “advocates & promotes prison solidarity” without specific references to objectionable content does not pass constitutional muster. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections repeated failure to adhere to internal DOC policy and well-established federal case law requires that we consider additional legal action to preserve our rights.
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).
The censorship notice received provides no specific information upon which an appeal may be based. Further review by your agency will likely show that no objectionable content exists in the ULK issue referenced above and therefore we require the publication be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX forthwith. We also require notification that such action has been taken.
MIM(Prisons) appeals lack of real response
Show Text
April 29, 2018
Pennsylvania DOC
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue January/February 2018
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your April 17, 2018 letter in reference to notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The letter, as did the original notification, provides no specific references to objectionable content. The boilerplate language of “advocates & promotes prison solidarity” without specific references to objectionable content does not pass constitutional muster. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections repeated failure to adhere to internal DOC policy and well-established federal case law requires that we consider additional legal action to preserve our rights.
Once again, we will provide the relevant federal case law relating to such notice. 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).
The letter and censorship notice received provides no specific information upon which an appeal may be based. You must immediately provide specific references to the alleged objectionable content. Failure to do so may result in litigation to enforce our constitutional rights which may result in the award of attorney fees and damages.
Based on the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ failure to provide the requested, and legally required information, this letter also serves as notice to secure and maintain all correspondence, memoranda, emails, reports, or any other documentation in relation to this matter for the purpose of litigation. It is our well-founded belief such information is discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to place such a litigation hold on this material may have adverse legal consequences in any future litigation related to this matter.
We have repeatedly asked for this information to no avail. Such failure, after a clear request, is prima facie evidence of a deliberate and willful violation of our rights.
Pennsylvania DOC
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 11, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice” and referring only to Mr. XX) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). However, we were also notified by Mr. YY of censorship of the same issue, but for different reasons. Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections concerning the reasons cited in reference to Mr. YY, this appeal is timely.
While in the normal course of notification, the publisher or distributor need only be notified of the censorship on one occasion, our position is that when such censorship cites any differing reasons for censorship separate notifications are required.
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice cited to page eleven (11) of ULK and stated “advocates solidarity.” However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated PADOC DC-ADM 803. A review of PADOC DC-ADM 803 shows that the word “solidarity” is mentioned nowhere in the policy and is clear on its face that “advocat[ing] solidarity” is not. Page 11 clearly and unequivocally promotes only peaceful solidarity. Solidarity is defined as “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.”1 One need only conduct a simple Internet search to locate correctional officers acting in solidarity.(2)
As to the notice provided to Mr. YY, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship for the reasons set forth in Mr. YY’s notice within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
While reserving our right to appeal the second censorship decision, we would note that the notice sent to Mr. YY alleges a verbatim quote as the reason for censorship. “[T]he strip searches in the PA DOC are only for harassment purposes and we the people need to learn to fight and take a stand against the ‘pigs’ in the prisons.” These words in this quote appear nowhere in the cited pages or the entire publication. This alone requires the censorship decision to be vacated, as the decision cannot be supported based on words authored by the censor and not the publication
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 request the decision of the Incoming Publications Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those prisoners to whom it was addressed. The censorship notices provided to either MIM Distributors or Mr. XX make sufficient allegations of content which withstands scrutiny and must be vacated.
You may reply to the address listed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
09/19/2017
PA DOC reverses censorship
Show Text
Re: Under Lock & Key #57, July/August 2017
This is to notify you that the publicaiton in issue does not violate Department Policy. As such, the decision of the correctional institution is reversed and the inmates in the PA Department of Corrections will be permitted to receive the publication. The correctional institutions will be notified by the Policy Office of the decision.
