DECORATED VIET NAM VETERAN, DILIGENT SCHOLAR, DISTINGUISHED ATTORNEY, WRONGLY ACCUSED, PROSECUTED, CONVICTED, SENTENCED AND IMPRISONED, DENIED PARDON, DENIED COMMUTATION BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT.
WELCOME TO THE PGHN WEBSITE AND BLOG--dedicated to providing news and analysis of federal and States criminal law, and prison conditions, including their impacts on recidivism, the family, and government. PGHN has been created to provide useful services and information to a Community of caring, sharing persons, including the accused, their attorneys, their families, (or, in the case of entities, their officers, directors, shareholders, partners, trustees, employees—pejoratively "white collar criminals") prosecutors, legislators, college and graduate school professors and students, whose interests are education, forensics, law, political science, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, related disciplines, other interested intellectuals and professionals, and the general public, who are as impacted by crime, criminal law, and imprisonment, as all of the usual subjects, even though they may not realize it until too late, except, hopefully, as they gain awareness through our Community.--
WHAT'S THAT WORD?RETROACTIVE/ RETROSPECTIVE: Operating in a backward direction; applying to the past as well as to the future. Until the Supreme Court declares Alleyne v. US, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), retrospective, none of the inferior courts will deem themselves to have that power as each has asserted in more than 200 hundred cases within the year after the Supreme Court's Alleyne decision. Symptomatic of the indecisiveness of the inferior courts is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' pronouncement in Simpson v. US, 721 F.3rd 875 (2013): "… the decision is the Supreme Court’s, not ours, to make. Unless the Justices themselves decide that Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review, we cannot authorize a successive collateral attack…" The inferior courts eschew making retrospectivity decisions, without distinguishing substance from procedure, based on their belief that Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663 (2001), stands for the proposition that a new rule is not to be "made retroactive" unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive, apparently forgetting the pronouncements of Teague v. Lane, 489 US 288 (1989) and Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 352 & n.4 (2004) that a new constitutional rule is retroactive if it is substantive rather than procedural in nature. If Alleyne is not substantive, and we do not concede the point, at the very least it is of that category that has been described as a "watershed" rule of criminal procedure entitled to retroactivity as well. Retroactivity analysis is complicated under federal law where an accused has previously sought relief on habeas grounds and is, at the time of consideration, requesting relief under a second and successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (2006). However, federal habeas requirements on second and successive petitions are understood to allow retroactive application where “the right combination of holdings” indicates the Supreme Court’s intent that a rule be employed retroactively. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 666 (2001). Under Teague, substantive rules are always retroactive, Summerlin, whereas procedural rules are only retroactive when they are deemed to be “watershed” rules of criminal procedure. Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 495 (1990). Substantive rules “include decisions that narrow the scope of a criminal statute by interpreting its terms.” Summerlin, at 351. This includes interpretations that modify an element of an offense, as recognized in Summerlin, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) and Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 2000). As the inferior courts will not make the retroactivity decision, Supreme Court must, if it is to be made at all.
the next few blogs, we will analyze why the federal Indictment of FedEx is a
piece of crap which should never have been given birth, why it should be
dismissed by any judge worth the title, why it should be a basis for
sanctioning, if not also prosecuting, the California based federal prosecutors
who brought it to life, as well as for their prior extortions of millions from
UPS, Walgreens, and CVS. Our purpose is not to assist
FedEx in its worthy defense, but rather to castigate, by example, federal
prosecutors who routinely extort guilty pleas from those not so savvy and
well represented as FedEx by bribery, browbeating, overcharging, threats and
other dastardly means.
UPS, Walgreens and
CVS were criminalized as drug dealers, and large sums extorted from them by US
Attorney Melinda Haag of San Francisco, because weight loss, insomnia, anxiety,
and anti-convulsion drugs were delivered through them from pharmacies to patients
whose prescriptions were issued by doctors employed by the pharmacies based on their
doctors' review of questionnaires without physical examination. Now her office is trying to extort more millions
from FedEx on the same bogus premises.That
premise of criminality is that the prescriptions delivered were bogus because
the prescribing doctors based them on internet questionnaires instead of physical
examinations and therefore drugs must have been dispensed to persons "who
had no legitimate medical need for them."We admit upfront that in one real sense, the FedEx allegations are
correct, at least facially.But they are
correct only because the offending questionnaires were completed by federal
Drug Enforcement, Food and Drug agents and like State agents, who obviously had
no need of the prescription drugs for weight loss, insomnia, panic disorder, and
convulsions that FedEx delivered to them.Clearly, had a physical examination of them been conducted, the doctors
would have known that their requests for prescriptions was motivated by their
wanting to create evidence and entrap rather than by any need to abate their
personal maladies.As for anyone other
than these entrappers, why would anyone "who had no legitimate medical need
for them" even want these drugs? Wouldn't
anyone who needed these drugs be able to go before a doctor and display the
symptoms, such as obesity, tiredness, anxiety, and convulsions, necessary to
obtain a prescription for them?So what makes
dispensing them at less time and cost based on a questionnaire reviewed by the
prescribing doctor criminal?What is more, what makes FedEx a criminal for
providing a means for their delivery?Why isn't the prescribing and delivery that the Fed seeks to criminalize
just a natural marketplace provision of needed product at least price?
BOOKS AND MAGAZINES CAN BE SENT INTO PRISONS ONLY FROM PUBLISHERS OR BOOKSELLERS
CLICK ON IMAGES BELOW FOR IMMEDIATE PURCHASE ACCESS AND AUTHORIZED PRISON DELIVERY
The Resurrection Project miracle has arrived!!!
Revised Alleyne petitions now' argue that Alleyne's retrospectivity should be unaffected by the 1-year limitation usually applied to disallow habeas corpus petitions. Order now:
x==========Resurrection Project ORDER FORM==========x
(copy this form and email to email@example.com )
( ) pro forma version ($50*), which provides the bases and argument for overturning the inmate's drug ( ), drug conspiracy( ), money laundering ( ), or other ( ) convictions (check which), sentences and incarceration. You provide the personal, trial, appeal, and post-conviction proceeding details; or
( ) custom version ($150*). You provide the Inmate's full name(s) (and if known, federal registration #, federal courts—trial, appellate, and post-conviction) so that I can deliver to you a version customized with the inmate's personal, trial, appeal, and post-conviction proceeding details, and with the bases and argument for overturning the inmate's drug ( ), drug conspiracy ( ), money laundering ( ), or other ( ) convictions (check which), sentences and incarceration specific to the inmate. And, if you need it: ( ) cover letter to the Supreme Court ($1.00*); ( ) in forma pauperis petition and affidavit ($2.00*).
Deliver by reply email attachment ( ). Deliver by other means ( ) (indicating (a) means (e.g. USPS, FedEx.UPS)/(b) name/(c) address): (a)______________________ / (b)_____/c)___________
*per each inmate petitioner
If delivery is to be made other than by the preferred reply by email attachment, please so indicate, including the address and desired means of delivery. The cost of such delivery will be added to your payment. Payment per Invoice via PayPal is the preferred payment method. If payment is to be made by check, please so indicate with your order so that delivery instructions may be forwarded to you via email reply. You will be invoiced via email based upon your choice of pro forma or custom version and manner of delivery. Email or other delivery method of your selected version will be commenced upon receipt of your payment.
=================(end of form)======================
Some who did not file an Alleyne petition by Alleyne's first anniversary (6/17/2014) deadline may have made that decision based on their hope that the DOJ's Clemency Initiative would free them from their sentence just as well. We did not address that complaint at the time for lack of time, but do now because we believe Alleyne continues to remain alive for retrospective application. Unless an inmate satisfies all of the following eight conditions, it is not available: (1) the inmate would be characterized as a non-violent federal inmate; (2) the inmate would not pose a threat to public safety if released; (3) By operation of law, the inmate likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense(s) today; (4) the inmate would be characterized as a non-violent, low-level offender without significant ties to large-scale criminal organizations, gangs, or cartels; (5) the inmate has served at least 10 years of the inmate's sentence; (6) the inmate does not have a significant criminal history; (7) the inmate has demonstrated good conduct in prison; and (8) the inmate has no history of violence prior to or during the inmate's current term of imprisonment. Even if an inmate satisfies all of these eight criteria, clemency is dependent upon the DOJ recommending clemency to the President and the President exercising his totally discretionary right to grant clemency or not. By contrast, none of these criteria are relevant to the grant of an Alleyne habeas corpus petition.
HEADLINE NEWS--So much for the recent negative criticism of Supreme Court Justice Thomas based on his listening to litigants' argue instead of wasting their short time arguing with them as other Justices do. His Alleyne opinion deserves to be judged by posterity as one of the most important social justice opinions ever to come out of the Supreme Court. SELECT YOUR JUSTICE FOR ALLEYNE RELIEF: √ JUSTICE THOMAS *****Announced the judgment of the Court in Alleyne and delivered the opinion of the Court consisting of Parts I, III-B, III-C and IV. √ JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR ****Joined in Parts Parts I, II, III and IV of THOMAS' opinion, and filed a concurring opinion. √ JUSTICE BREYER ****Joined in Parts I, III-B, III-C and IV of THOMAS' opinion of the Court, and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment of the Court. √ JUSTICE GINSBURG ***Joined in Parts I, II, III and IV of THOMAS' opinion, and in SOTOMAYOR's concurring opinion. √ JUSTICE KAGAN ***Joined in Parts I, II, III and IV of THOMAS' opinion, and in SOTOMAYOR's concurring opinion. ? JUSTICE ALITO *Filed a separate dissenting opinion. As it was premised solely on application of Harris as stare decisis, now that Alleyne is precedent, Alito may grant a petition to render Alleyne retrospective. X CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Filed a dissenting opinion; X JUSTICE SCALIA and X JUSTICE KENNEDY Joined in ROBERTS dissenting opinion.