MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
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 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 11, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice” and referring only to Mr. XX) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). However, we were also notified by Mr. YY of censorship of the same issue, but for different reasons. Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections concerning the reasons cited in reference to Mr. YY, 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, our position is that when such censorship cites any differing reasons for censorship separate notifications are required.
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice cited to page eleven (11) of ULK and stated “advocates solidarity.” However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated PADOC DC-ADM 803. A review of PADOC DC-ADM 803 shows that the word “solidarity” is mentioned nowhere in the policy and is clear on its face that “advocat[ing] solidarity” is not. Page 11 clearly and unequivocally promotes only peaceful solidarity. Solidarity is defined as “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.”1 One need only conduct a simple Internet search to locate correctional officers acting in solidarity.(2)
As to the notice provided to Mr. YY, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship for the reasons set forth in Mr. YY’s notice within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
While reserving our right to appeal the second censorship decision, we would note that the notice sent to Mr. YY alleges a verbatim quote as the reason for censorship. “[T]he strip searches in the PA DOC are only for harassment purposes and we the people need to learn to fight and take a stand against the ‘pigs’ in the prisons.” These words in this quote appear nowhere in the cited pages or the entire publication. This alone requires the censorship decision to be vacated, as the decision cannot be supported based on words authored by the censor and not the publication
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).
We request the decision of the Incoming Publications Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those prisoners to whom it was addressed. The censorship notices provided to either MIM Distributors or Mr. XX make sufficient allegations of content which withstands scrutiny and must be vacated.
You may reply to the address listed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
09/19/2017
PA DOC reverses censorship decision
Show Text
Re: Under Lock & Key #57, July/August 2017
This is to notify you that the publicaiton in issue does not violate Department Policy. As such, the decision of the correctional institution is reversed and the inmates in the PA Department of Corrections will be permitted to receive the publication. The correctional institutions will be notified by the Policy Office of the decision.
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 57
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 11, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice” and referring only to Mr. XX) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). However, we were also notified by Mr. YY of censorship of the same issue, but for different reasons. Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections concerning the reasons cited in reference to Mr. YY, 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, our position is that when such censorship cites any differing reasons for censorship separate notifications are required.
The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice cited to page eleven (11) of ULK and stated “advocates solidarity.” However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated PADOC DC-ADM 803. A review of PADOC DC-ADM 803 shows that the word “solidarity” is mentioned nowhere in the policy and is clear on its face that “advocat[ing] solidarity” is not. Page 11 clearly and unequivocally promotes only peaceful solidarity. Solidarity is defined as “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.”1 One need only conduct a simple Internet search to locate correctional officers acting in solidarity.(2)
As to the notice provided to Mr. YY, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship for the reasons set forth in Mr. YY’s notice within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
While reserving our right to appeal the second censorship decision, we would note that the notice sent to Mr. YY alleges a verbatim quote as the reason for censorship. “[T]he strip searches in the PA DOC are only for harassment purposes and we the people need to learn to fight and take a stand against the ‘pigs’ in the prisons.” These words in this quote appear nowhere in the cited pages or the entire publication. This alone requires the censorship decision to be vacated, as the decision cannot be supported based on words authored by the censor and not the publication
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).
We request the decision of the Incoming Publications Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those prisoners to whom it was addressed. The censorship notices provided to either MIM Distributors or Mr. XX make sufficient allegations of content which withstands scrutiny and must be vacated.
You may reply to the address listed.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
09/19/2017
PA DOC reverses censorship
Show Text
Re: Under Lock & Key #57, July/August 2017
This is to notify you that the publicaiton in issue does not violate Department Policy. As such, the decision of the correctional institution is reversed and the inmates in the PA Department of Corrections will be permitted to receive the publication. The correctional institutions will be notified by the Policy Office of the decision.
It is a blatant falsehood that Issue #55 of Under Lock and Key advocates Pennsylvania prisoneres to participate in a work stoppage project. The censorship or publication violates publisher's 1st amendment right to communicate with grievant and grievant's right of freedom of speech and association. see exhibit #1
04/27/2017
Prison denies prisoner appeal
Show Text
I am in receipt of your greivance and have consulted with appropriate staff while reviewing the publication. The publication you reference, Under Lock and Key (march/April 2017), was denied due to an article referencing issues detrimental to the security of this facility. I have personally reviewed pages 20, 21 and 24 of the publication and can state that the article specifically poses a risk to facility security and encourages unauthorized group activity.
Your continued assertion that decisions by the IPRC are racially motivated hold no merit and are completely unfounded. As always, should you disagree with a decision rendered by IPRC and this writer, you h ave a final appeal level to Central Office.
Based on what is noted above, it is my decision to uphold the review committee's decision. I find that this grievance has no merit and is therefore denied.
Appeal from IPRC's denial of Under Lock & Key, November/December issue Volume 53. A national work strike was called for in the month of September to have the Slavery Clause removed from the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States constitution. Even the USA Today and Wall Street Journal covered that news, papers this prison gets. Those papers were not banned. thus, banning a periodical that is talking about a work strike that has passed, old news that this prison let through in news papers when the news was relevant and valid, is a willful exaggeration and falsehood just like the IPRC at this prison banned the November issue of the SF Bay View "lying" when they ruled pages 1 & 6 contained writings that advocated, assisted or was evidence of criminal activity of facility misconduct and racially inflammatory material or material that could cause a threat to the inmate, staff, or facility security when those pages had an article by publisher Willie Ratcliff encouraging prisoners whose BayView was banned to file grievances. On page 6 there was a sample letter for prisoners to use when writing to heads of Departments of Corrections. Since the IPRC willfully lied and the superintendent upheld that lie, I have no reason to believe this recent banning of Under Lock & Key is authentic because demonstrated credibility is lacking. See Exhibit "A," the pages of the Bay View which the IPRO banned and you upheld which is on appeal at grievance #655118.
01/11/2017
Prison denies appeal
Show Text
I am in receipt of your grievance and have consulted with appropriate staff while reviewing the publication. The publication you reference, Under Lock and Key (November/December 2016), was denied due to an article referencing issues that could be detrimental to the security of this facility. I have personally reviewed page ten of the publication and can state that the article specificaly poses a risk to facility security and encourages unauthorized group activity.
Your attachments, as they relate to comments expressed by those that write for the Bay View have no bearing on our Department or the rules put forth by such.
Based upon what is noted above, it is my decision to uphold the review committee's decision. I find that this grievance has no merit and is therefore denied.
