MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Missouri Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
2927 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
MIM Theory: United Front – 2001 - ? 14
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been notified of censorship by the Missouri Department of Corrections of MIM Theory: United Front (hereinafter, “publication”) as referenced above. We are the publishers of the publication.
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key and MIM Theory. 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).
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 PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
We demand the Missouri Department of Corrections provide notice as to the detailed reasons for such censorship with specific references to the material found to be objectionable. We reserve our right to appeal any censorship upon receipt of said amended notice.
The Censorship Notification merely states the publication “promotes, [i]ncites or advocates disorder or the violation of state or federal law.” The alleged reason for censorship is broad as the term “advocates disorder” is clearly a separate and unique term from “violation of state or federal law.” While each can occur in unison, they may also be mutually exclusive. The Notification fails to provide such information. The Notification also fails to provide specific references to the alleged offending material. MIM(P) without such information is not given reasonable notice of the reason for censorship and is denied the opportunity to make an informed appeal.
It is clear prison authorities “officials can withhold only literature specifically advocating violence.” See Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 814 F.2d 1252, 1257 (8th Cir. 1987). Federal courts have found that the advocacy of violence must be clear and not part of commentary or opinion which does not direct such activities. See
Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F. Supp. 2d 964, 973 (W.D. Wis. 2008).
Please note we are requesting a copy of any and all records relating to all issues of any publication produced or distributed by MIM(P) which has censored by the Missouri Department of Corrections, to include date of censorship, issue identifying information, and reason for censorship.
As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide specific notice, we have reviewed the publication and it does not meet the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.
We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and the publication be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.
Please take notice that failure to sufficiently identify the alleged objectionable material and specific references to its location in the publication, as required by long standing and valid case law, will subject the Missouri Department of Corrections to potential legal actions to enforce our rights.
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
Complaint: Documenting staff failed to follow policy and procedure with regards to unauthorized property notice. Mail denied in violation of policy.
On 3-10-16 books were mailed to me and denied 'due to content". See complaint attached hereto.
I request that books be ordered delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
Complaint detail:
On 3-10-16, i received an "unauthorized property notice" regarding books in which i had ordered. The reason stated in the notice - "denied due to content."
Offender Mail Procedures IS13-1.1 states that "a publication or item may not be rejected because its contents is religious, philosophical, social, sexual, or is unpopular or repugnant."
The materials in question have already been allowed into the institution, were placed on my property list and were sent home due to wear and tear, so new copies were ordered.
As held in the Supreme Court decision Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. at 415, prohibiting "inflammatory" prison speech fairly invites prison officials and employees to apply their own personal prejudices and opinions as standards for prisoner mail censorship and suppress unwelcome criticism. The Court has never repudiated Procunier's holding that prison officials may not censor speech simply because they deem it 'inflammatory."
The particular items in question are complex theoretical, political-economic journals. There is nothing that is inflammatory; racially or otherwise in said material.
The censorship of said materials clearly is violating my rights guaranteed under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Unite States Constitution. These rights cannot be abridged by the State or any other individual as they are guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
Furthermore, complaintant has volumes of the same material that comes to him weekly for over the last 20 years and not one incident in violation of institutional rules, regulations or policies has ever occurred based on the content of said materials entering the institutions.
It should also be noted that the staff member(s) who initiated the unauthorized property notice, did not follow policy in that no notice was given to me as to where my books were, what options i had with regard to my property. Also, no notice was sent to the publisher (who has a right to appeal any censorship).
I am requesting that said material be delivered to me at staff's earliest convenience.
cc: Personal File
MIM(Prisons)/publisher
ACC-Classification Staff H.U.16
U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division
Venus Harry, Attorney-at-Law
