Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

3 April 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 18 March 2010 mailroom staff D. Jackson censored a magazine titled MIM Theory issue 11, 1996 from Mr. XXX at Florida State Prison. The magazine was returned to the sender, MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. There was a notice of rejection of the publication included in the return envelope, however the form gave no information as to why the publication was rejected. There was an 'X' marked to indicate that the publication is rejected because it contains inadmissible subject matter. However, under "Criteria in Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401 FOC, Admissible Reading Material, that authorizes IMPOUNDMENT or REJECTION of the publication due to subject matter:" none of the criteria were marked.

I am sure you are aware that it is illegal to censor mail to prisoners without explaining to the sender and the intended recipient specifically why the item is a threat to security. This letter is to (1) request more information on why this item was censored, and (2) appeal that decision made by mailroom staff D. Jackson. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that the above mentioned publication should be rejected at FSP.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

1 February 2010

Dear Warden Adams,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009) from MIM Distributors to many prisoners at CSATF. We suspect that it has been censored from all of its intended recipients, but have only confirmed this with XXX and YYY. According to CSATF mailroom staff, the reason this newsletter was censored is because it "violates CCR Title 15, 3006 (c) (1) Any matter tending to incite."

We request to (1) appeal the decision made by CSATF mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as undeliverable. We also ask for (2) an more complete explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, because surely everything that incites anything can't be censored by CCR. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009) be deliverable to XXX, YYY, and any other prisoners who so desire to communicate with MIM(Prisons)

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

4 April 2010

Dear Warden Adams,

On 24 February 2010 Mailroom Sergeant C. Pugliese wrote to us with a more thorough explanation as to why our mail has been censored at CSATF. We appreciate this explanation greatly, but still do not believe that it is legal to censor mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners at CSATF. This letter is to appeal the decision of "denied" made by Sgt. Pugliese and have the matter investigated at a higher level of review.

Attached is a copy of the letter we received from Sgt. Pugliese. In this letter, Sgt. Pugliese took the evidence out of context, and/or provided examples that are not legitimate threats. For example, Sgt. Pugliese provided the following quote as an example of something that is a threat to the good order of the institution,

"United Struggle from Within is an organization of anti-imperialist prisoners, led by MIM(Prisons) and is a place for anti-imperialists to organize from within the prison system."

There is no rule that says prisoners are not allowed to oppose imperialism, especially because MIM(Prisons) only advocates legal and nonviolent means of working for change. For example, from Under Lock & Key, a publication that is distributed by MIM Distributors,

"MIM(Prisons) struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time..."

On page 1 of Sgt. Pugliese's letter, she/he says that "MIM advocates that inmates come together as a 'revolutionary group' for the purposes of imposing their idea of prison reform." This is hardly a valid reason to censor a publication. It isn't Sgt. Pugliese's job to determine the merit of MIM(Prisons)'s idea of prison reform, and she/he should not use their personal disagreements with MIM(Prisons)'s platform as a reason for illegally censoring letters and publications. Sgt. Pugliese's job is to follow CDCR policy, and it is your job as Warden to ensure that she/he does just that.

In that same paragraph, Sgt. Pugliese asserts that "The MIM literature advocates seizing public power through armed struggle and overturning prison administrations 'by stripping them of control.'" I do not know where Sgt. Pugliese has found this claim, and she/he does not say where it is from. It is either an inaccurate paraphrase purported to be a quote, or it is taken grossly out of context.

In closing, we would like to appeal this decision by Mailroom Sergeant C. Pugliese to the next level of review.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Senior Warden Chuck Biscoe
Beto Unit
1391 FM 3328
Tennessee Colony, TX 75880

2 April 2010

Dear Warden Biscoe,

This letter is regarding the censorship of several letters from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Beto Unit. Mr. AAA and Mr. BBB have had letters denied delivery to them including the publication Under Lock & Key and a guide to fighting censorship that MIM Distributors sends out. The censorship guide encourages prisoners to use legal means of fighting censorship, including filing grievances, appealing them, and taking the case to court if necessary. There is no valid or legal reason these letters or publications should be censored.

We would like to bring it to your attention that your mailroom staff is not correctly applying TDCJ policy to these materials, including the absence of notification to the prisoners or MIM Distributors that the letters have been denied, and why. Occasionally "need DC#" will be written on the envelope when it is returned, but when we check the prisoner's DC# on the TDCJ website, it is accurate.

With this letter we request (1) that an investigation be made into why mail from MIM Distributors is censored from Mr. AAA and Mr. BBB, and possibly others. We also request (2) that your mailroom staff at Beto Unit be retrained to notify the senders and intended recipients of mail be notified when and why it is denied, as per law. Lastly, we request (3) that mail from mailroom staff stop tampering with correspondences between MIM Distributors and prisoners at Beto Unit, as it is their right to communicate with us.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

2 April 2010

Dear Warden Adams,

On 24 February 2010 mailroom staff V. Oyerviolez wrongly censored a magazine from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at CSATF. This letter is to appeal that decision, and to allow the magazine to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX.

The reason that V. Oyerviolez gave for this censorship this censorship was CCR Title 15, Section 3006 (c) (11) "Catalogs, advertisements, brochures and materials whose primary purpose is to sell product(s)" shall be disapproved for delivery. The item in question is actually a magazine, not a catalog, titled MIM Theory 14: United Front. Admittedly, the inside of the back cover of the magazine has advertisements for other issues of MIM Theory. However, it is obvious that V. Oyerviolez did not do a thorough or accurate investigation of the true nature of this magazine, because MIM Theory 14: United Front is NOT a catalog, but instead 170 pages of pure plain text. Even the front cover identifies the publication as a "theoretical journal" which implies wordiness, not sales.

Upon review, this magazine will be determined to not be a catalog, and should be permitted for timely delivery to Mr. XXX. It is ridiculous and illegal that the impotency of your mailroom staff at CSATF should lead to such hassle and delay. We ask that you reprimand V. Overviolez for their intentional disregard of their responsibility to their job, and retrain your staff on how to tell the difference between a document that is made up of articles and a document that is made up of advertisements.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Aref Fakhoury, Warden
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91708

21 February 2010

Dear Warden Fakhoury,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 12 (Jan/Feb 2010) from MIM Distributors to XXX at California Institution for Men. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with a stamp that said "against regulations."

This letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key issue 12 is "against regulations." The newsletter was received by many prisoners across the state of California, and the country. Apparently it was not "against regulations" at those hundreds of other facilities.

We request (1) an independent review the decision made by California Institution for Men mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as "against regulations." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 12 be deliverable to XXX, and any other prisoner at CIM who wishes to correspond with MIM Distributors.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Aref Fakhoury
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91710

2 April 2010

Dear Warden Fakhoury,

Thank you for your timely response to my inquiry regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to QQQ at CIM. In your response you referred to an August 25, 2007 ban on all MIM mail.

Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in January 2010, Under Lock & Key is still being banned based on the outdated memo you referred to?

Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with QQQ and other who wish to communicate with MIM Distributors held at CIM.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

U.S. Bureau of Prisons
North Central Regional Office
400 State Street
Tower II, 8th Floor
Kansas City, KS 66101

2 April 2010

Dear Regional Director,

This letter is regarding blanket censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at U.S. Penitentiary Marion for the past year. The publication in question is titled Under Lock & Key. It is a newsletter that contains articles that are written by prisoners. No identifying information, such as names of ID#s, is disclosed in the newsletter.

On 22 April 2009, ULK issue 7 (March 2009) was censored because it contains inmate-to-inmate information. However, considering prisoners are allowed to write for the press, and prisoners are allowed to read the press, it would be illegal to claim that ULK falls under this category of being inmate-to-inmate correspondence, unless you are also censoring newspapers that have any authors who are currently in prison. This same illegitimate reason was given to censor issue 9 (July 2009) and issue 10 (September 2009). Issue 8 was not sent into Marion prison, which is probably why it wasn't censored.

Issue 11 ( November 2009) was censored because pages 6, 7, 10, and 11 "contains correspondence which encourages actions which may be disruptive to the orderly operation of the institution." On page 7 of issue 11, in a box titled "What is MIM(Prisons)?" is written "MIM(Prisons) struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time..." and the rest of the publication stays true to that principle.

This letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff at USP Marion. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key should be completely banned at that institution. We would also like to ask that further correspondence between MIM Distributors and any prisoners at USP Marion go on without harassment or illegal censorship in the future.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

8 March 2010

Warden Hedgpeth,

On April 28, 2009 and July 6, 2009 you acknowledged that publications from MIM Distributors were not banned in California prisons, after months of mail be returned to sender from your facility. However, we continue to receive our mail returned to us stamped "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item" or "Not on approved mailing list at SVSP." This week alone we received 10 letters returned as described above.

This problem has been ongoing consistently since 2007, with no signs that your mailroom staff is following the department?s rules, nor legal precedent. You have assured us on more than one occasion that your staff has been retrained to not ban mail from MIM Distributors, but this is obviously not the reality.

I am requesting that immediate action be taken to remedy this problem.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties