MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors wrote prison about rejection
Show Text
December 17, 2023
SCI Phoenix Mailroom
1200 Mokychic Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
MIM Distributors inquired about reason for refusal
Show Text
December 17, 2023
State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180
Refused Newsletters
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”
Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.
Furthermore, we would remind you that 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)
We request that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. 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.
(15)(g) encourages, provides instruction on, or facilitates the commission of a crime; (15)(h) depicts, describes or encourages activities that may lead to the use of physical violence on another person; (via prisoner, they did not notify publisher)
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Rejection for the publication Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated September 1, 2023.
Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the fact that we did not receive notice of censorship from your institution but from Mr. XXXXXX himself. This is patently unacceptable as it violates the long-standing legal precedent of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) wherein the courts found that that “the author of [censored mail] be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision.” This finding has been upheld for nearly five decades, including in Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) where the courts held that “publishers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when their publications are disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers.”
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(g), (15)(h), and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material for either facilitating “the commission of a crime”, encouraging activities leading to physical violence, or presenting a threat to the security of the prison.
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. 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 when 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 Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán 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.
page(s) _13_ that mentions custody staff by name, institution, and assigned post location. This information could place custody staff open to any form of violence.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
California City Correctional Facility
Attn: D. Stump
22844 Virginia Blvd
P.O. Box 2626
California City, CA 93505
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 81
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 81 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notice cites page 13 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder,; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material contains information which “could place custody staff open to any form of violence.”
We have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria laid out in the California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1). Nor do we believe that the airing of grievances against specific prison officials at a separate facility places them “open to any form of violence.”
In fact, in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, the Supreme Court held that the censorship of statements which “magnify grievances” is unconstitutional.
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)
We request the decision to withhold issue 81 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.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
08/18/2023
Letter from Division of Adult Institutions in Sacramento putting ULK 81 on ban list
Show Text
"Under Lock and Key, Summer 2023, No. 81, has been placed on the Centralized List of Disapproved Periodicals by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation..."
"...This Decision is based on the violation of the CCR, Title 15, Section 3006(c)(16) Contraband, which states in part, "Material that is reasonably deemed to be a threat to legitimate penalogical interests." Page 13 of the publication violates this policy section."
Willie Anthony Dobie III
Chief
Office of Policy Standardization
08/18/2023
Letter from CCCF mailroom stating Publication Disallowed
Show Text
responding to MIM Distributor's appeal, restating reasons given in original notification
09/21/2023
Follow up from MIM Distributors
Show Text
September 21, 2023
LeAnna Lundy
California City Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2626
California City, CA 93505
Re: Publication Disallowed
Dear Ms. Lundy:
We are in receipt of your institution’s notification regarding the continuing censorship of issue 81 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notification again alleges that page 13 of ULK contains material which tends to incite violence among prisoners. We must again assert that, upon review, we do not believe it meets the criteria laid out in CCR Title 15 Section 3006(C)(1). We would also direct your attention to the following quote of ours page 2 of ULK: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” Furthermore, holding public officials and government employees accountable for their actions in the press is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment.
Again, we request the decision to withhold issue 81 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.
This publication has been impounded or rejected on 8/9/23, title: Under Lock & Key from MIM Distributors PO Box 40799, San Francisco, CA 94140. I am appealing this impoundment. I've been receiving this newspaper for over a year and have never had a problem. I should be allowed to receive a newspaper.
09/21/2023
MIM Distributors appealed
Show Text
September 21, 2023
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Rejection for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated August 9, 2023.
Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the fact that we did not receive notice of censorship from your institution but from Mr. XXXXXX himself. This is patently unacceptable as it violates the long-standing legal precedent of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) wherein the courts found that that “the author of [censored mail] be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision.” This finding has been upheld for nearly five decades, including in Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) where the courts held that “publishers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when their publications are disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers.”
The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment
under sections (15)(j), (15)(o), and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material for either including “signs, symbols, or other identifies of a security threat group”, advertising a set of prohibited services, or presenting a threat to the security of the prison.
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in our publication. 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.
