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.--
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 minorsâ€”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
as well as from all othermajorbooksellers.) 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'sâ€”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.
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--THERE ARE NOW POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE 3 “GET OUT OF PRISON LEGALLY” INITIATIVES—LEARN WHICH MAY BE BEST FOR YOUR IMPRISONED FAMILY MEMBER, LOVED ONE, CLIENT. Submit this questionnaire to find out. It’s free
as possible, i.e. Possession of 5 kgs of cocaine):
What was your sentence?
______ years supervised release; fine: $_____;
restitution: $_______; other: _______________.
Your current incarceration started (day/mo/yr):
What conduct might cause you to be
characterized as violent (if none, so state)?
What conduct might cause you to be
characterized as a threat to public safety
if released (if none, so state)?
What ties are you alleged to have to any
criminal organization (if none, so state)?
What prior convictions have you had
(if none, so state)?
Describe any incidents of violence prior
to or during your current term of imprisonment:
What evidence can be presented to demonstrate
your prison conduct and how would such conduct
be characterized by the BOP?
What is the status of any appeal?
What is the status of any other proceedings?
HEADLINE NEWS--There is much criticism of the Ferguson Grand Jury (sitting in Clayton, but so-called because of the location of Brown’s killing and the “White DA” whose unprecedented, but excellent, explanation for no grand jury indictment failed to abort rioting. The “White DA” brought the charges. In the exercise of prosecutorial discretion he need not have done so. But the Ferguson rioting and destruction immediately after Brown’s killing must have dictated his passing the decision off to them since they are anonymous by law and he is not . Other than by his presentation, a district attorney would have no control over a Grand Jury deciding whether to indict. The typical fault to be levied against a DA is that information which shows innocence not guilt was withheld. Prosecutorial obstruction of justice is applied to trial discovery withheld from the defense rather than to presentation before grand or petit jury. US v. Williams, 504 US 36 (1992). The DA in the Ferguson matter stated that he presented everything to the Grand Jury. Apparently to provide independent confirmation of this statement, presumably, in the hope to avoid more rioting, unusual as it is, The White DA made everything presented to the Grand Jury public so that the public could judge for itself if it would take the same time and effort of months the grand jurors took to decide there was "no probable cause" for indictment. Many Brown partisans are now urging the federal government to get involved. However, the federal government does not have criminal jurisdiction over the matter unless it can be fashioned as a criminal violation of Brown's civil rights by Police Officer Wilson., or highly improbably, the White DA, who did his job, or the grand jurors, who remain anonymous by law (except for disclosure that three were Blacks) who have virtual unfettered right (even beyond a petit jury prerogatives broad confines of fact and law) to make whatever decision on whatever basis. The federal government has been involved in the investigation of the Ferguson matter from day one. The only avenue is a civil case brought by someone who would have standing to do so, presumably, his parents, for damages. However, that does not seem the least bit realistic either. Self-defense and police immunity for acts in the line of duty would make any recovery a daunting task for anyone involved--judge jury, counsel--probably impossible.
VOTE WHETHER THE CRITICISM IS justified OR not CHECK WHICH.