MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
ATTN: WARDEN
Federal Correctional Institution McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford PA, 16701
Rejected Mail
To whom it may concern:
We are MIM Distributors, a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently had two pieces of mail returned to us after sending them to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. These two pieces of mail were copies of our newspaper Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”), specifically issues 81 and 87.
Firstly, we were troubled to observe that there was no notice of censorship sent along with the rejected copies of ULK. This brazenly go against Federal Bureau of Prisons policy as found in Program Statement 5265.14 which states: “When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection.”
Most worryingly, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by policy 5265.14 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed to uphold justice in this case.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and future publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
ATTN: WARDEN
Federal Correctional Institution McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford PA, 16701
Rejected Mail
To whom it may concern:
We are MIM Distributors, a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently had two pieces of mail returned to us after sending them to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. These two pieces of mail were copies of our newspaper Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”), specifically issues 81 and 87.
Firstly, we were troubled to observe that there was no notice of censorship sent along with the rejected copies of ULK. This brazenly go against Federal Bureau of Prisons policy as found in Program Statement 5265.14 which states: “When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection.”
Most worryingly, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by policy 5265.14 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed to uphold justice in this case.
We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and future publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. 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.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
12/27/2023
Mailroom Supervisor says it is policy that newspapers must go to Security Processing Center Download Documentation
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.
