MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Denial - The publication is on the Disapproved Publication List. Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimantal to mental health. On the banned list.This was overturned
In accordance with A.D. 04.01.10B, II, K12, I would like to request that the publication Revolution be screened and subsequently be removed from the banned publication list.
In support of this request, listed below is every article which is contained within the May 16, 2010 issue of Revolution, which is enclosed. If the Committee should reject my request, I wish to be advised as to which of these article(s) was deemed objectionable:
[list of articles from publication]
Thank you for your processing of this request.
03/31/2011
Publication removed from banned list, delivered to prisoner
Show Text
Central Publication Review Committee [X] Do Not Concur
"Approve - remove from banned list. Review case by case bans."
STG References. Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.[Download Documentation]
STG References. Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.[Download Documentation]
STG References. Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.[Download Documentation]
STG References. Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.[Download Documentation]
STG References. Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.[Download Documentation]
Appeal to Publication Review Officer from MIM(Prisons)
Show Text
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
10 May 2010
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. The publication that was denied delivery is titled Under Lock & Key issue #13 (March/April 2010). The reason that Publication Review Officer L. Shemonic gave for this denial was "Pg. 7 promotes hunger strike and suicide, possible other pages" in addition to alleging that it "appears to be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health."
On page 7 of Under Lock & Key issue 13 there is an article titled "Prisoner driven to suicide" that is a narration by a prisoner regarding her/his experience with defeatism, hopelessness and suicide. The article continues on to page 12 of the newsletter and is followed by a response from MIM(Prisons), that says,
"We are writing to remind you that your life is very valuable. . . We encourage you to become more involved in revolutionary struggle instead of suicide. . . For someone like yourself, who supports the struggle against all forms of oppression, to remove your life as a resource from this world is to work in favor of the oppressors."
In light of this fact, it is obvious that the article about suicide and hunger strikes on page 7 of Under Lock & Key issue 13 does not "promote hunger strike and suicide," like L. Shemonic erroneously claimed.
We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial. We also would appreciate the timely deliver of Under Lock & Key issue 13 to the prisoners named above.
Additionally, we would appreciate a thorough retraining of the mailroom staff at Menard Correctional Center because issues of Unlock Lock & Key are routinely denied to prisoners at Menard on initial receipt, and then the denials are overturned on review. This runaround is a waste of time for MIM Distributors, the prisoners involved, and the Publication Review Officer who has to review these incorrect denials.
Pages 6, 7, 10 and 11 contain correspondence which encourages actions which may be disruptive to the orderly operation of the institution.[Download Documentation]
Letter to Regional Director appealing ban of ULK
Show Text
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.
Appeal to Warden and Publication Review Officer
Show Text
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
21 February 2010
Dear Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 11 (Nov/Dec 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE at Menard Correctional Center. The decision to censor this publication was made by L. Shemonic on 15 December 2009.
The reasons this publication was denied are listed as "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption or it facilitates organizational activity without approval of the Chief Administrative Officer"; "be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health"; and "denied per intel for STG content."
This censorship of Under Lock & Key has been going on for many months, and every time someone from our legal team writes in to dispute it, the decision is overturned on further investigation. We see this as an issue of inadequate training of the mailroom staff at Menard Correctional Center, and we believe it is in everyone's best interest if they were retrained to accurately determine whether Under Lock & Key violates Menard policies. To date, the censorship of Under Lock & Key has not stood up to the Publication Review Committee.
Within the pages of every issue of Under Lock & Key is a box titled "What is MIM(Prisons)?" In issue 11, it is on page 7. This box contains the main principles of the organization that puts Under Lock & Key together, MIM(Prisons) and in it says "Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts." If one took a closer look at the articles within the pages of Under Lock & Key, one could tell that this theme runs throughout the whole newsletter. We disagree that a newsletter when an explicit position against violence and criminal activity could be in violation of the previously mentioned reasons issue 11 was censored.
This censorship is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009) and issue 9 (July 2009). They were both censored because they "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer on both accounts. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.
In our last letter to Menard Publication Review Committee on 31 August 2009 regarding the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 9, we argued that there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence" or involve groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups." We went on to argue that mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially because we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.
In conclusion, we request (1) an appeal of this decision made by L. Shemonic by the Publication Review Committee. We also request (2) that the mailroom staff at Menard Correctional Center be retrained to accurately and objectively determine the appropriate status of any publication being mailed to someone held at Menard, especially as it relates to potentially controversial literature such as Under Lock & Key. We request that (3) AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE be allowed to receive their copies of Under Lock & Key issue 11 that are being held by mailroom staff, and that (4) any prisoners held at Menard who choose to communicate with MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) be able to do so without illegal denials and excessive delays in mail delivery.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
August 31, 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z on August 6, 2009.
The reasons this publication were denied are listed as threatening the good order of the institution, making security threat group references, and depicting violence. This is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009). It was censored because it "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.
Additionally, there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence." Unless you are going to ban the New York Times and all other newspapers from Menard Correctional Center, we don't think this is a sufficient example that ULK threatens rehabilitation by depicting violence. Similarly, newspapers frequently report on the activity of groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups."
Mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially becuase we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
August 31, 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z on August 6, 2009.
The reasons this publication were denied are listed as threatening the good order of the institution, making security threat group references, and depicting violence. This is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009). It was censored because it "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.
Additionally, there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence." Unless you are going to ban the New York Times and all other newspapers from Menard Correctional Center, we don't think this is a sufficient example that ULK threatens rehabilitation by depicting violence. Similarly, newspapers frequently report on the activity of groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups."
Mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially becuase we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
August 31, 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to request a review of the denial of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009), published and distributed by MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. This publication was denied to Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z on August 6, 2009.
The reasons this publication were denied are listed as threatening the good order of the institution, making security threat group references, and depicting violence. This is similar to the Menard mailroom's censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009). It was censored because it "threatened the good order of the institution," but this decision was overturned by the Publication Review Officer. So, we already know that ULK, on the whole, is not a threat to the good order of the institution, and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove such.
Additionally, there is not a legitimate newspaper in the world that does not print articles that "depict violence." Unless you are going to ban the New York Times and all other newspapers from Menard Correctional Center, we don't think this is a sufficient example that ULK threatens rehabilitation by depicting violence. Similarly, newspapers frequently report on the activity of groups that your institution probably labels "security threat groups."
Mentioning a group's name, or referring to them indirectly, especially in the context of asking for peace and unity, which is quite the opposite of violence, does not "depict, describe, or encourage activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption," as this denial claims. According to Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 "prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." What proof do you have that "STG references" in any way threaten the institution? Especially becuase we are asking for peace, and an end to STG violence.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
Appeal to Publication Review Officer about Ban
Show Text
Dwight Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
23813 E. 3200 North Road
Dwight, Il 60420
Publication Review Officer,
We recently have been notified of the "ban" of mail from MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA from being delivered to prisoners in Dwight Correctional Center. The reason cited for mail being denied is it is "disapproved publication." We have received two of these notices, and both articles were mailed to XXX.
We are confused about why a pamphlet that outlines the history of the organization MIM would be considered a "disapproved publication. Please shed some light on this issue. Please also refer to the following case law in review of this supposed "ban" on mail from MIM Distributors.
?First, the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Such interests include security, order, and rehabilitation. Second, the challenged action must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of that interest." Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777, 784 (7th Cir. 2006) referring to standards set in Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800.
Also, we would like to notify you that we have been dealing with the same censorship issue at Menard Correctional Center. Recently they have overturned the ban and are now reviewing our mail on a case-by-case basis. This means that we have been getting a lot more mail into Menard, which seems to imply that a complete ban of MIM literature is "greater than necessary or essential to the protection" of prison interests.
Please send us more documentation regarding the censorship of MIM Distributors mail. What policies is this abiding by? What is on this list of "banned" mail? Is it all mail from MIM Distributors, or just some literature?
Determined to be detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or it might facilitate criminal activity.[Download Documentation]
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
30 June 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners X, Y, Z, and P. The mail in question is MIM's newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009), that was denied because it supposedly is "detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline," and a threat to the "good order of the institution."
We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. However, we disagree that it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," as required by U.S. law under Turner v. Safley. For example, in every issue of Under Lock & Key, violence and illegal activity are distinctly discouraged. You can see for yourself at the bottom of page 2 of issue 8, in the "What is MIM(Prisons)?" box, quoted here for your convenience:
"Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts."
We don't only say this as a disclaimer on the second page, but uphold that perspective throughout all the articles in Under Lock & Key. We fail to see how a newsletter with a nonviolent perspective can "advocate or encourage violence," or how a newsletter that only advocates legal means of acquiring justice can "facilitate criminal activity," as the censorship notice from Menard Correctional Center states.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
Menard Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
30 June 2009
Publication Review Officer,
This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners X, Y, Z, and P. The mail in question is MIM's newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009), that was denied because it supposedly is "detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline," and a threat to the "good order of the institution."
We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. However, we disagree that it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," as required by U.S. law under Turner v. Safley. For example, in every issue of Under Lock & Key, violence and illegal activity are distinctly discouraged. You can see for yourself at the bottom of page 2 of issue 8, in the "What is MIM(Prisons)?" box, quoted here for your convenience:
"Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts."
We don't only say this as a disclaimer on the second page, but uphold that perspective throughout all the articles in Under Lock & Key. We fail to see how a newsletter with a nonviolent perspective can "advocate or encourage violence," or how a newsletter that only advocates legal means of acquiring justice can "facilitate criminal activity," as the censorship notice from Menard Correctional Center states.
We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.
letter to Publication Review requesting explanation
Show Text
Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259
22 April 2009
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is regarding an ongoing pattern of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Menard Correctional Center. It seems that this mail is being returned to sender without consideration of its contents since none of the envelopes have been opened. One returned letter was a two-sentence letter to a prisoner confirming receipt of mail, a number of other returned pieces contained a publication with the expressed purpose of reducing violence in prisons. All of the mail was stamped with ?Item Not Permitted? and a couple had ?MIM Banned? written on them.
After reviewing Section 525.230 of the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Admn. Code Sec 525.230), it seems that a number of rules were overlooked in these incidents. First, part c) explains that written notice of administrative decisions to review a publication coming into the facility will be sent to the prisoner and the publisher, no later than 30 days from the date the facility received the item. In addition, part f) states that a publication can be banned after 6 consecutive denials. We never received notices for any of these issues. I also know that at least some of the prisoners who have been denied mail from MIM Distributors have also not been notified of the censorship. We did receive the last two issues returned to us with the above mentioned stamp, but this does not explain how the literature violates any of the criteria laid out in part b). I am confident that upon review you will find that it does not. Since we were not given an opportunity to request a review before, I am doing so now. Enclosed is the most recent issue of the publication Under Lock & Key that is published by MIM Distributors.
If it is true that the publication Under Lock & Key has been banned, does said ban apply to any mail with MIM Distributor?s return address on it, such as the aforementioned letter? The definition of ?Publication? in Section 525.202 does not include letters, and 525.300 does not seem to allow for a general ban of a party from sending mail to a prison. Please clarify.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1105.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1378.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1379.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1380.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1381.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1382.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1106.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1423.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1100.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1101.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1102.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1103.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1104.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1108.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1043.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c968.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c965.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c966.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c967.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c976.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c1044.jpg){kind=link}
