Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Maine’s Inmate Journalism Ban Killed



Maine’s Inmate Journalism Ban Killed
The proposed prison regulation prohibiting inmate journalism disappeared from the latest update.  It would not have withstood that scrutiny anyway. There is federal precedent, established in 1974, that upholds inmates’ free speech to give interviews.  Writing published newspaper columns or blogging, as I’ve tried to do (achieving double digit readership  J ), could not have been distinguished as speech different from an interview.  The whole endeavor was more effort to insulate inmates, continue oppression, sabotage rehabilitation and hide the corrupt practices of our prison system.
The vacuous claim in ‘74’ for censorship was, that an interviewed inmate achieves ‘big wheel status” and thereby threatens operation. I’ll skip the prevailing counter-argument re: inmates’ free speech rights and state that prison status comes exclusively from violence—real or perceived. Our government, as the exclusive arbiter of legal coercion, knows this. They are the ultimate “big wheel” extortionists. How much coerced behavior have you carried out in your life? More than voluntary behavior?
The whole play was naked reversal bullshit…”Oh no, any first person exposure of prison life will unbalance the fragile slave trade, by way of an imbalance of slave social status.” I have 100 examples of these feigned ignorance, bureaucratic, deliberately deceptive, and pusillanimous, cheap shot power plays. [Read any issue of Prison Legal News for 50 examples.] Even as a life-long doormat I cannot take any more. Excessive tolerance excessively exceeded.
Latest personal example:  I have had to file suit against the Colorado Dept. of Corrections just simply to “apply” for interstate corrections compact (transfer to Maine). No one is denied application to a statutory (i.e. law that DOC has to at least pretend to honor) right; except me.
Authorities conceptually inserted their own additional wording into the statute for the sake of misinterpretation in order to deny my even applying. It is not up to that particular authority to interpret the law/statute. Their denial read like a bribe solicitation.
I’ll write more about the 100 feigned ignorance, bureaucratic, deliberately deceptive and pusillanimous, cheap shot power plays, later.
Case citation: Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 43 (1974)

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Stuck on Stupid

Stuck on Stupid 

This is a repost of blog entry in 2012 / it can be viewed also on maryellenpecci.blogspot.com 

The first print of MEP's first novel 'Cross Threaded' is available on Amazon & Kindle



 “Stuck on Stupid”      or       “How to Fillet a Citizen”                                                                    
 © Mary-Ellen Pecci, 2012
There are a number of descriptive words and phrases that describe the unethical practices of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline as well as other judicial entities in our country. 
The express use of “plausible deniability,” avoiding the facts because to address them would be to admit an ethical violation, is one way to describe how they function.

Hence, when a complainant informed this commission that the judge on his case had been replaced without notice and his case had been given to a different judge for a decision, one whose ethics the complainant is questioning in his petition, the commission ignored the actual complaint.  Instead they tried to justify the judge’s denial of the petition.  This is not their job.  Their job is to make sure that no judicial malfeasance was involved in that denial.  A judge should not be reviewing a petition if that judge is part and parcel of the petition.

Appeals courts follow similar avoidant paths when they pay no attention to the question being raised but instead wander off into the back country of nonsense. How do they justify this wandering; they have reduced the citizenry to a notation in a mathematical equation.  The courts are either unable to conceive that they can change the equation and produce results that address human dignity and fairness under the law, or they deliberately choose to mock the law.

Fairness should begin in the lower courts but in many cases it does not.  On appeal the higher courts use an equation that figures in the competence level of those lower courts.  Once the competence level of the lower court is determined then they apply the equation to determine who is or is not treated with negligent indifference.  The possibility of a ‘Catch 22’ exists; the competence of the lower court is not accessed and a standard equation of negligent indifference is applied. 

This standard equation propagates ethical violations.  There are a number of District Courts in Colorado that suffer from this type of ethical malignancy.  The Eighth District Court of Larimer County is an example.  The fecundity of District Attorney Stu VanMeveren is known.  For 32 years he fertilized and watered his seedlings and pollinated ethical tumors.  Several of his fledgling plants, Terrance Gilmore and Jolene Blair, did not survive the rapid growth.  The unchecked power of the prosecutor was checkmated by the citizens of Larimer Country.  Gilmore and Blair were ousted from the bench for infractions they committed as prosecutors by the people of the Eight District. 

Other descriptive words and phrases to describe the negligent indifference to ethical violations are: “deliberate ambiguity” or “strategic ambiguity,” obscurantism …
The smudging of language is “Orwellian” in nature; a “societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, …”  It considers the people unworthy and incompetent of evaluating and managing the facts.
This style is practiced by prosecutors when lucky enough to grab onto to a citizen who is new to the legal system.  Prosecutors know the citizen is extremely vulnerable to manipulation due to lack of knowledge. Across this great country prosecutors are failing to turn over mitigating evidence to public defenders and private lawyers.  Their hands are tied in order to preserve bartering power in plea agreements, a nasty little invention that assures plenty of time on the golf course for the court house work group.  Public defenders are not a match to the power of the prosecutor. 
This judicial philosophy that is dangerous to democracy has been too readily accepted into general practice.  Commissions on Judicial Discipline are supposed to be the home guard, protecting the rights of the people from judges and prosecutors who have become comfortable with a certain sloth that develops in patterns of organizational behavior.  Amy Bach in her book, “Ordinary Injustice,” observes: “Ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a ‘pattern of lapses’ that they no longer can see their role in them.” 
I don’t believe the commissions or the courts could be called Machiavellian because cunning is lacking; arrogance trumps cunning.  The most apt phrase I have heard, one used in our prison culture, is “stuck on stupid.” This is a fitting description for the intense commitment to avoid the content of judicial complaints.  It also describes the same needle stuck in the groove of indifference that our appeals courts scratch out.
How about “tergiversate” as another defining word; when one uses “weasel words” they create meaningless rhetoric, they communicate nothing useful or meaningful when answering a specific question; they evade by subterfuge.
These words and phrases indicate different forms of sophistry; the words of many of our judiciary look good on the outside but are rotten in the middle.  Like biting into a shiny red apple, one must be aware of the pretty fruit; it may harbor a slimy worm.  Better still, lets call this evasion what it is; it is self serving and pompous.
In her research Amy Bach noted the opinion of J. Richard Hachman, an organizational psychologist at Harvard; “There is plenty of Social Science evidence that proves the system often shapes the individual.” Our judicial branches have to endeavor not to become Ministers of Indifference, creators of unpeople (expungers of people), colonialized oppressors, purveyors of gibberish!
The question is “how strong is an “individual’s capacity to oppose the cultural current of a group or organization?””  Not strong enough because any body of law that adjudicates regrettably tends to end up shaped by the system they have become part of.
The overseers of our judicial systems must not be part of the judicial system.  Oversight commissions should not be comprised of judges, prosecutors, or law enforcement.  They should be comprised of legal advisors independent of political/judicial influence and representatives from special interest groups such as mental health practitioners, religious leaders, and people from the business community.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Three Excerpts from Cross Threaded, new novela by Mary-Ellen Pecci, available on Amazon & Kindle



Excerpt One, Cross Threaded

Maddie had a whirlwind first day. Mary Gage was efficient although a bit on the cool side.  She gave Maddie a tour of each court, introducing her to that courts assistant. She met several of the judges. Judge Carl McCarthy, Criminal Court, shook her hand while looking at her tits. She envisioned kneeing him in the groin while she starred straight at his eye sockets. She knew the type and was looking forward to digging into his past and present.
Mary caught the violation.
Further down the hall Mary said, “He’s harmless.”
Maddie said “Oh?” and let it go, but thought to herself, “Ya, right!”
The Juvenile Court judge, Peter Peck was around fifty years old, older than McCarthy, by around ten years.  He shook her hand as if his was made of cold, oiled linguini. His light blue, almost albino eyes stared blankly at Mary as she tried to explain who Maddie was and why she was giving her the tour. He wasn’t giving Mary his full attention because his eyes were drawn to a young boy leaving his court room. He made a quick skittish head nod at Maddie.
Mary quickly diverted Maddie’s attention to discussion of processing paperwork from each court.
Further down the hall family court was just adjourning.  Curt and Tony were standing outside the doors when Judge Violet bumped into them, spilling her papers which Tony briskly grabbed up, trying to catch any useful information while rearranging them to pass back to her. She curtly said “thank you,” and grabbed the papers out of his hand appearing aggravated as she came toward Mary and Maddie.  She passed by ignoring them both.
“You can meet her later,” said Mary. “She has had some hostility issues lately.”
“That’s fine with me,” Maddie said as the stench of perfume wafted in the breeze the old woman created.

Excerpt Two, Cross Threaded

Maddie decided to check out Mary’s property tax file. She found nothing. She went online to property tax files for neighboring counties. In Clover County she found Mary’s taxes on buildings to be fairly high and appraisal value was 2.5 million. The land value was more staggering. For a 500 acre parcel Mary was accessed for value at $1,000,000. One might think she and Rusty were looking at real estate development as a career change.
She checked the county records under Rusty’s name in the township his cabin was in and found the property was owned by Detritus Development Corporation; Rusty Naylor and Marlene Christa, president and vice president. She recognized the name ‘Christa’. Though she had yet to meet her she had seen her passing by in the hall. Marlene was with the public defender’s office.
Maddie thought it odd that someone would name a company after decomposing matter.

Excerpt Three, Cross Threaded

Peter Peck had been a pale, scrawny child.
His mother was a workaholic and his dad was his caretaker and very protective of Peter.
One night in the late fall when the roads were wet and temperature had dropped to below freezing his mom’s car was broadsided by a fish truck. Peter’s dad grabbed him up and put him in his car seat. Peter was eight years old but his dad insisted he sit in a car seat if he was going to ride up front.
They went to the crash site where his dad was informed the ambulance had taken his wife to the hospital. There were dead fish all over the road. His father opened the door of the car and vomited.
Peter never ate fish again.

His mom had died while in route to the hospital.  She left Peter and his dad very well off.  Peter’s college funds were totally taken care of.
When Peter was ten years old his father remarried. The woman was a buxom, controlling, overbearing, troll, in Peter’s eye, sweet as pie to his father though.
Peter developed an intense desire to torture the woman he now called ‘mother dear’.
The final straw for his dad was when Peter put cayenne pepper in the talcum powder she used under her breasts and in her crotch area.
His father sent him off to boarding school where he thrived.




Friday, June 5, 2015

REQUEST FOR RESEARCH ASSISTANCE



REQUEST FOR RESEARCH ASSISTANCE
To determine the session law of the first occurrence (ratification of) the below statutory subsection:
2014 CRS: §16-5-204(4)(lima) - Any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury and request to testify or re-testify in an inquiry before a grand jury or to appear before a grand jury. The prosecuting attorney or the grand jury shall keep a record of all denials of such requests to that prosecuting attorney or grand jury, including the reasons for not allowing such person's to testify or appear. If the person making such request is dissatisfied with the decision of the prosecuting attorney or grand jury, such person may petition the court for hearing on the denial by the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury. If the court grants the hearing, then the court may permit the person to testify or appear before the grand jury, if the court finds that such testimony or appearance would serve the interests of justice. As transposed from 1963 CRS: §39-5-204; presumably subsection (4)(lima).
Please reply to jason.pecci@gmail.com.