Sunday, December 21, 2014

How Often Can We Be Wrong About Everything We Think?



Thank you to everyone who wrote a letter of support for the commutation or signed the group letter.
                                                 ~~~
Some landmark points in my life have been the discovery of mistaken beliefs about how things work. These occurrences form the basis of the essay below.
How Often Can We Be Wrong About Everything We Think?
Let's pace over the well-trod ground of misconception. At various
times in our lives we discover that everything we think is wrong. I
hope to address any misconceptions about the legal defects I have tried
to correct.  The operating misconceptions of a first timer to the judicial system enabled and caused these misconceptions to prevail. 
The defects are most concisely represented by this fact: A week
after sentencing my attorney, Kathryn Hay, informed me that she would file notice of appeal and recommend range testing. The range should have been resolved in the mind of Ms. Hay on
week one of representation. I speculate that she must have felt some guilt for her ramblings at sentencing where she made only one concrete statement; that I shot Marc Bender from four feet. [Anyone following Michael Brown, Ferguson Mo., or with rudimentary ballistics knowledge, knows that determinability drops after 12" and becomes indeterminate at 18"!] Babbling an incongruous distance was her way to refute the prosecutor's testing from 0"->12". Hell, she was on a roll from having me sign the plea contract uncounseled and having the head public defender tell me (without knowledge of range, or anything?) that it was plea or be found guilty of first degree murder.
That's three massive misconceptions: 1) range testing after sentencing, 2) uncounseled plea, 3) appeal to uninformed authority.
A fourth, that encompassed the first three, is that Hay had assured
my family that there were defensible issues and that she would defend
me.
Five is that Patricia Lara planted false statements in the pre-sentence investigation report; one, that my then spouse worked at the bar where it all went down, and more grievously, that Marc Bender was "an innocent by-stander to the collapse of the marriage." Mr. Bender invited Cari Pecci to move in with him the first time they copulated,
and was the cause of the collapse of the marriage. But that's not relevant, is it? No. Ms. Lara inserted this clause from training, so that it could be projected to Bender generally; as "an innocent bystander" to everything. This renders it impossible, in the stage show of a courtroom, for him to be the recipient of any effect he caused.
How elegant are the intentionally imposed misconceptions within
the system that everyone conceives to function with goals of equanimity,
justice, and such? These acts against me prove that I was in an environment opposed to its advertised purpose. This achieved the misconceived goal, by the owners of the system, of telling an aggrandized story, to support an aggrandized sentence, and perpetuate aggrandized authority. Everything we thought was wrong.
Let us reverse this and look at the situation from the first impressions, which leveraged the five complaints above. Someone shoots
their wife's boyfriend in the parking lot of a bar; enough said, res
ipsa loquitur, right? We are wired to make minimal evaluations to continue to acquire air, food, shelter, and the other needs of Mazlow's
hierarchy. These type of estimations would always prove inaccurate if researched. We never know because we don't take courses in logic and critical thinking and seek employment making researched findings for a society that has to make their own evaluations in their fields of expertise. Most of us are accountable for
our findings and actions in support of our employment, and perforce, correct relevant bad assumptions, estimations, and accusations. My experience has been that thinking wrong; while intolerable in private business; serves the ends
of the judicial branch of our government. They run better (by unchecked
authority) under the "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" paradigm.
I hope you can see the perverse irony of how a defendant may bring that
same paradigm to confront a charge, like a sparrow into a courthouse
wall. Whatever these judicial shot-callers choose to think becomes
permanent. Immutable. Its falsehood emanates from a foundation of
law degrees, false logic, and privilege of assumption as profound as it
is invisible.
          This indulgence – decadent manipulation executed in high profile invisibility – leaves this query; is the wrong thinking intentional, whereby they have thought of ‘right’ but indulge in ‘wrong,’  or,  has the privilege of public deception evolved to self-deception and we, the “voice of the people” believe, along with them that they are incapable of misconception?

          If the latter is true then everything I have thought is wrong.  They are not simply deceitful, they are pathologically delusional.

                    The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with
                    your opinions and content with your knowledge.

                                                  Elbert Hubbard


Post Script:  by Mary-Ellen
I have to give Jason credit for saying “If the latter is true…”


Tuesday, December 9, 2014

WHAT A TWISTED WORLD WE LIVE IN! (SAYS MEP)



Addendum to Application for Sentence Commutation
(Executive Clemency), Regarding Discovery That
Applicant Is Flagged "Secu
rity Threat Group" (STG)



I, Jason Pecci, submitted a request for sentence commutation to my case manager on 24 September 2014. On 17 November I discovered that I am flagged as a "security threat group" member (known as STG or gang tag). The origin and duration of this tag is undiscovered, and may remain secret.  Investigation will reveal that my disposition and behavior has been constantly diametric to prison culture.

I am disposed against affiliating with groups in general and convicts specifically - an avoidant personality type - to the extent that no clique would have me (and may be offended to find that I have an unearned STG status). By great fortitude I isolate myself from the negative environment of prison.

The accusation of STG perfectly reflects the substance of this
petitio
n for commutation. It demonstrates unfounded presumption that results in extended punitive effects; all unknown to me. (fn)

The petition describes the judicial version of this ambush, which led to a conviction and sentence premised upon unfounded presumption.

A STG tag is an accusation of cooperative behavior against the
order of a penitentiary
. Please allow this occurrence of being accused, in exact opposition to my behavior of non-affiliation and non-engagement, to amplify my claims in this application for commutation.
                    fn. This presents an example of how inmates are hindered from positively managing their incarceration.