Crime and Prisoner Law News
Prisons Get Harder Now
of disproportional criminalization, sentencing, incarceration, judicial failure, recidivism, bankrupting costs
Contact George Hook/PayPal Payment
for Alleyne Forms, case dockets (federal/state), documents, and status
attorney referrals, other inquiries.
WHY GAFF OBAMA WITH  HOOK?
AN INNOCENT'S PATH TO PRISON.
GEORGE HOOK,
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.--





RETURN TO TOP
Innocent must serve full unlawful sentence and wait five years before pardon!
1-excuses of  DPA; 2-explanation by GCH; 3-PA's reply
Commutation:
(Also Remission of Restitution) 
Pardon:
Letter to President
Petition Form

Crime and Prisoner Law News

Charging Adolescents as Sexters and Cyberbullys--the Consequences.

by George Hook on 11/18/14

Warren Township High School freshmen are charged under the Illinois Criminal Code with sexting and cyberbullying, as well as the female whose exposed chest was the source of the child pornography, since apparently, though a minor too, she did the selfie and consented to the sexting (the cyberbulling apparently being based solely on her minority and inability therefor to give meaningful consent, and ignoring that the "perps" were also minors—all in favor of disingenuous prosecution, as usual, albeit State instead of Federal for now.  (But see "Worse than Pornography," pp. 122-134, Marking Time, available in paperback and kindle (including download to your computer) at 

[http://www.amazon.com/Marking-Time-George-Clive-Hook/dp/146356046X

as well as from all other major booksellers.) If the parents gave knowing consent, they would be aiders and abettors to the "crime."  Possibly, the parents' lack of supervision or negligence could yet net them in the web of criminal injustice.  Ludicrous as this seems, the least rational analysis shows it is even worse.  The same act criminal among minors is not criminal among adults.  This is age discrimination, but constitutional if it is deemed by our august justices to have a rational basis.  Witness all those disgusting adult porno sites protected by 1st Amendment free speech.   What about the freshman males distributing their bared chests over the internet?  Not child pornography!  The female's—child pornography!  Is this not unconstitutional sex discrimination?  Some future case will likely so hold, but for now such distinctions may be deemed rational.  The local police are quoted in the local media: "Instruct children to report any explicit photos they receive on their cell phone to their parent, teacher, school counselor, pastor, or other trusted adult."  What self-respecting kid would do this?  Is it not 'snitching,' the worst breach of camaraderie? "Under no circumstances should they forward an explicit message to someone else." Does this admonition include the very persons to whom they are 'snitching?'  "They should not delete the message in the event law enforcement becomes involved."  Is this saying that doing what any rational person who objects to porno would do will constitute the crime of obstructing justice? "Parents should consider monitoring and spot checking their children's phone for harmful material."  Is this mere Parenting or 1984 style Big Brotherhood?   Following this advice of the local police may have dire life-long adverse consequences, witness  Marking Time, which also exposes how hypocritical, indeed, insanely so, are our pornography prohibitions and penalties.

ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE ESCAPE SELECTIONS:    
Tell a friend about this page
Join Our Mailing List
Join Our Mailing List
-CLICK HERE TO LEAVE GENERAL COMMENTS
your html snippet
~GREAT ESCAPES FROM PRISON NOT CRIMES~
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 crimelaw@pghn.net )
(   ) 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--Fifty-three names were inscribed on Marking Time's Wall of Sham at the time of its publication.  Included were prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and jailers deemed to have used the smoke and mirrors of hypocrisy to be unjust.  There are others now who should be added, including DC District Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts for his sentencing of defendants in the JOJO case for crimes of which the jury had acquitted them.  Also qualifying for inclusion would be the DC Circuit Court of Appeals judges who affirmed such an execration of the Sixth Amendment—Thomas Beale Griffith, who wrote the confirming opinion and Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Stephen Fain Williams who concurred.  For their denying the JOJO defendants' petitions for writs of certiorari, should Supine Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan also be placed on Marking Time's Wall of Sham? No, they can't be; but only because granting certiorari is discretionary, not mandatory as for inferior court appeals and habeas corpus petitions.  However, the dissents of Roberts, joined by Scalia and Kennedy, and Alito, in Alleyne may qualify them for inscription on The Wall of Sham.  Arguably, Scalia's and Alito's names might be scrubbed from the Wall based, in Scalia's defense on his scathing dissent in JOJO and, in Alito's, on his slavish reliance on Apprendi stare decisis, albeit wrong, as his sole basis for his Alleyne dissent. Habeas corpus petitions are now pending in the Supine Court to make Alleyne retrospective.  Unlike JOJO, these compel the Supine Court, as a matter of law, to rule on the issue which only it can decide, according to the more than 200 inferior courts that have been presented with the issue of Alleyne's retrospectivity.  Follow the progress of these petitions to see whether the Supine Court remains true to that moniker and what excuses the Justices may set forth to avoid the clear mandate that all courts and all judges must address habeas corpus petitions presented to them.   Until their decision, everyone who qualifies should file an Alleyne habeas corpus petition in the Supine Court.  Pro forma and custom petitions may be accessed from the column to the left. 
Hopefully, the many whose imprisonments are based on virtual verdicts will benefit from favorable rulings on such petitions.