MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Prisoner receives notification for censorship
Show Text
The reason Under Lock and Key has been rejected is: "The publication contains information on inmates and petitioning to support inmate food strikes and has been determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution."
I noticed that the rejection notice they are sending you gave you 20 days from receipt to appeal, but that the cheaters dated the rejection letter which was given to me today, 10 April 2015, talking four days off the clock for me. Not much time for me to reply.
04/10/2019
FORM FILED: letter from Warden to MIM Distributors re: censorshup of ULK 43
Depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of hysical violence or group disruption or it facilitates organizational activity without approval of the chief Administrative Officer.
Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key March/April 2018 Issue 61
To Whom It May Concern: EDIT
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because it disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership. There are two sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
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).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
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).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.
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).
Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.
It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.
We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.
The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.
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).
As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
01/16/2018
Prison responded to MIM(prisons) protest letter with specific examples Download Documentation
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.
The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.
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).
As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
additional information on censorship reasons
Show Text
Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.
Other: Detrimental to safety and security of the facility. Disrupts order. Promotes organization and leadership.
Signed: C. Hurle
11/12/2017
MIM(Prisons) protests censorship
Show Text
November 12, 2017
Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above reference prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on boilerplate language. Such language does not provide the specificity required to sustain such censorship and does not allow us a reasonable opportunity to appeal such improper censorship The form fails to provide specific information as to the objectionable content, such as page numbers or quoted portions of the publication. The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit.
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).
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
11/13/2017
Publication Review Determination and Course of Action
Show Text
Denial - The publication be disapproved as it contains material determined to:
Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline, or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.
Other(specify): Safety and security concern, disrupt order, promotes leadership and organization, promotes hunger strikes.
Reviewed by C. Hunter 10/25/17
Concur: Randy Pfister 10/25/17
Concur: Leslie McCarty 11/13/17
additional information on reasons for censorship
Show Text
Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.
Other: Detrimental to safety and security of the facility. Disrupts order. Promotes organization and leadership.
Signed: C. Hurle
11/12/2017
MIM(Prisons) protests censorship
Show Text
November 12, 2017
Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above reference prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on boilerplate language. Such language does not provide the specificity required to sustain such censorship and does not allow us a reasonable opportunity to appeal such improper censorship The form fails to provide specific information as to the objectionable content, such as page numbers or quoted portions of the publication. The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit.
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).
As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.
Facts reviewed: On grievance dated 7/13/17 offender claims that the May/June 2017 issue of MIM Distributors, No. 56 was banned but feels that he should be allowed to have it since he is interested in all radical political movements.
Counselor Dennis responded "According to the Publication Review Committee MIM Distributors May/June 2017 No. 56 is on the banned list."
Grievance Officer finds that according to the PRC Chairperson the publicaiton was reviewed and determined to be on the banne dlist. Offenders' political beliefs are not a factor in PRC determinations. Offender received and signed a Publication Review Determination and Course of Action DOC0212 form on 7/13/17. It appears that proper protocol was followed.
Recommendation: Based upon a total review of all available information it is the recomendation of this Grievance Officer that this offender's grievance be DENIED due to offender's publicaiton being on the banned list.
Grievance officer's name: David Mansfield, CCII
Chief Administrator Officer's Response 7/21/2017:
"I Concur"
09/06/2017
MIM(Prisons) appealed censorship
Show Text
September 6, 2017
Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 56
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of a notice of censorship from XX concerning the issue of Under Lock Key (ULK), issue 56. We are the distributors of ULK and did not receive notice of the censorship of this issue at any time.
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 issue 56 of ULK, 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.
In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 56 be vacated and the issue be delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.
You may respond to the address listed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
10/25/2017
Publication receipt and course of action
Show Text
Notification of publication denial because publication:
Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or itm ight facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.
Article drugs in prison, unity amongst prisoners.
Promotes leadership and organization detrimental to safety and security of the facility.
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.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c5934.jpg){kind=link}