MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
“sex offenders vs. Anti-people sex crimes. Whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing”This was overturned
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue March/April 2018 Issue 61
SCI Rockview
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your second April 19, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content relates to pages 1-24 as “sex offenders vs. Anti-people sex crimes. Whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing” (sic). This reference is related to discussion and news reporting that is both meaningful and noteworthy. It is not in violation of any PADOC policy or standard. As such censorship based on this factor is unconstitutional and subjects the PADOC to legal action.
The issue takes a stance that any crime against people is wrong and specifically references drug dealing and assault (p. 5). Contrary to the censor’s rendition of the content. The issue further talks at length about rehabilitation to prevent re-offending in the future. All content which is clearly no censorable. The discussion of revolution is on a philosophical level and nowhere in the issue is there any call for violence or mayhem which would impact the operations of a correctional facility.
Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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).
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue March/April 2018 Issue 61
SCI Pine Grove
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your April 19, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The Notice states the objectionable content relates to “bondage of little girl” on page four of ULK. A review of page four is clear that no graphical depiction exists in any form. Page four does reference an article by Family Fun magazine’s May 2017 issue as containing an advertisement “show[ing] a boy duck-taping a prepubescent girl to a garage wall.” This is the only reference and it is based on publication in a magazine which was not censored by PADOC. This reference is related to discussion and news reporting that is both meaningful and noteworthy. It is not in violation of any PADOC policy or standard. As such censorship based on this factor is unconstitutional and subject the PADOC to legal action.
The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).
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 govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
05/23/2018
prison reports that publication was reviewed and permitted into all facilities Download Documentation
sex offenders vs. anti-people sex crimes. whole news letter, about whether sex offenders can play in the revolution and organizing[Download Documentation]
Create a danger within the context of the correctional facility pages 1-24. Sex offenders vs. anti people sex crimes, whole newsletter, as well as obscene material
We are in receipt of a Notice of Incoming Publication Denial relating to prisoner notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice provides no articulable reasons for or specific references to objectionable content. The boilerplate language of “advocates & promotes prison solidarity” without specific references to objectionable content does not pass constitutional muster. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections repeated failure to adhere to internal DOC policy and well-established federal case law requires that we consider additional legal action to preserve our rights.
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).
The censorship notice received provides no specific information upon which an appeal may be based. Further review by your agency will likely show that no objectionable content exists in the ULK issue referenced above and therefore we require the publication be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX forthwith. We also require notification that such action has been taken.
MIM(Prisons) appeals lack of real response
Show Text
April 29, 2018
Pennsylvania DOC
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue January/February 2018
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your April 17, 2018 letter in reference to notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).
The letter, as did the original notification, provides no specific references to objectionable content. The boilerplate language of “advocates & promotes prison solidarity” without specific references to objectionable content does not pass constitutional muster. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections repeated failure to adhere to internal DOC policy and well-established federal case law requires that we consider additional legal action to preserve our rights.
Once again, we will provide the relevant federal case law relating to such notice. 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).
The letter and censorship notice received provides no specific information upon which an appeal may be based. You must immediately provide specific references to the alleged objectionable content. Failure to do so may result in litigation to enforce our constitutional rights which may result in the award of attorney fees and damages.
Based on the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ failure to provide the requested, and legally required information, this letter also serves as notice to secure and maintain all correspondence, memoranda, emails, reports, or any other documentation in relation to this matter for the purpose of litigation. It is our well-founded belief such information is discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to place such a litigation hold on this material may have adverse legal consequences in any future litigation related to this matter.
We have repeatedly asked for this information to no avail. Such failure, after a clear request, is prima facie evidence of a deliberate and willful violation of our rights.
Pennsylvania DOC
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue UNKNOWN
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of an undated Unacceptable Correspondence Form relating to prisoner notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections citing no reasons for censorship or identifying a specific publication, this appeal is timely.
While in the normal course of notification, the publisher or distributor need only be notified of the censorship on one occasion, we have yet to be notified as required. Further, the language of the Notice referring to “Denied MIM Publication” gives all appearances of a blanket ban on ULK and other MIM(P) publications, in direct violation of the requirement for individualized assessment of each publication. Such a blanket ban in unconstitutional on its face.
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice provides no reasons for or specific references to objectionable content. Further the Notice does not reference any issue of ULK or otherwise name the publication being rejected, supporting a reasonable basis to believe a blanket ban is in place.
As to the notice provided to Mr. X, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship specifying the reasons for censorship and the title of the publication being censored within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
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).
The censorship notices provided to Mr. X provides no information upon which an appeal may be based. Further review by your agency will likely show that no objectionable content exists in the unknown publication and therefore we require the publication be delivered to Mr. X forthwith. We also require notification that such action has been taken, to include the title of the publication.
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
03/06/2018
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs claims prisoner received the publication Download Documentation
