When bad things happen to good people
When bad things happen to good people
MY SHIPWRECK
MY SHIPWRECK 

Read this

Jailing Old folks Makes No. Sense 

By Geraldine Downey, and Frances Negr6n-Muntaner 


In 1980, the methadone clinic that had been treating Gloria Rubero as an outpatient dropped her, Shewas 
soon desperate for drugs, In August that year, she and an associate took part in a burglary that went wrong and led to the murder of an elderly neighbor. 
Ms. Rubero was arrested three days later' and was eventually convicted of robbery and second-degree homicide. The judge at Ms. Rubero's trial gave her an indeterminate sentence of 20 years to life. 
At the start of her jail term, Ms. Rubero felt suicidally depressed. But over time, 
she devoted herself to helping others. 
In 1985, she became a founding member 
of the Youth Assistance Program and 
logged more than 200 hours of speaking to 
at-risk youth on the harshness of prison 
life. The following year, having witnessed 
the devastating impact of AIDS on 
prisoners and their families, Ms. Rubero 
helped start an AIDS education program 
at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, 
which was adopted by the entire New 
York State prison system. Eventually, she 
gained certification as a counselor, both 
for drugs and H.l.Y. testing. 

 

           

 

 

  Is Justice Blind to Sentencing Disparities?

 

August 2016

 

 

Lady Liberty remains blindfolded while the scale of justice is no longer balanced. The great symbol of our country covering her eyes has become a prosecutor's dream. The American public has become blind to what our Justice System dishes out as punishment causing a complete miscarriage of justice for the majority of criminal defendants.

 

As a working professional raising a family, paying taxes, I was blind to the whole Justice System. After all, I was a law abiding citizen. I worked hard, stayed out of trouble, and never considered myself breaking any laws or hurting anyone. Heck, I even thought that the First Amendment Right of free speech would save me. After all, I was not shouting out "FIRE" in a crowded building.

 

However, many men have fallen into an addiction. If justice is blind, we humans become blind under various vice addictions.

On-line pornography addictions will eventually lead to crossing lines and viewing some sort of child pornography. As the accompanying articles " A Quiet but Growing Judicial Rebellion ... " authored by Sen. Arlen Specter and ex Criminal Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia (2005- 2009) published back in October 2011, magazine 'The Champion' and the more recent article "Child Porn Possession Gets Longer Sentences than Rape, Molestation" in the July 27, 2016 issue of the Criminal Law Reporter's Jessica DaSilva, the sentencing is and remains severe. I post these articles on this site to get the authors "Message" out to the public so that the readers of www.myshipwreck.com sees that this old Captain is not just complaining about his harsh sentence. By allowing the viewers to see these articles, they will be scared into stopping any criminal activity concerning child pornography, thereby saving other innocent children from becoming victims. Captain Shipwreck's other main goal is to prevent other men from running up on the
rocks and loosing everything.

 

There are changes coming, but they are slow. Federal District Judge James S. Gwinn of Cleveland Ohio, challenged the federal sentencing guidelines for child pornography by sentencing a man named Ryan Collins to five years imprisonment instead of the 27 years the prosecutor wanted. (This information from CCNCR Newsletter of July 2016. Now the interesting aspect of this sentence was that while Judge Gwinn thought that the guidelines were extremely mharsh, he decided to poll the jury members. Remember, the jury heard all the harsh disgusting aspects of what the prosecutors felt they needed to know. The prosecutor succeeded in that as the jury found Mr. Collins guilty. But when the judge asked them what or how much time of incarceration the jury felt was adequate, the jury recommended 14.5 months. That is correct, the prosecutor wanted 27 years, not months while the jury felt 14.5 months was sufficient.

 

Now Judge Gwinn’s opinion is that the sentencing guidelines are "way off base". The problem is that there are not enough Judges that buck the system. The Eleventh Circuit seems to be extremely harsh as the Eleventh Circuit maintains that all 'Guideline Sentences' will not be addressed as overly harsh. The problem with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion is that their stubborn approach is costly in federal funds, but also keeps otherwise law abiding men in prison much longer than necessary. The cost is not only to what happens to
the defendant charged in viewing crimes, but it is costly to their families
with embarrassment and shame. Yes, viewers of child pornography are guilty of going against societies rules. While many arguments are made if viewers really cause more child pornography to be created, one thing is sure, it sure does not help!

 

If a loved one, or you yourself look forward to spending time alone behind close doors viewing legal adult pornography, beware, most of the several hundred middle age professional men here at this Federal Prison never felt they were harming anyone looking at adult pornography, as they slowly became blind and an addiction to porn over took their viewing habits, Seek help. Do it today, because you or someone you know may be on the verge of loosing everything like I did.

Captain Shipwreck.

 

 

  1.  

 

 

 

A Quiet but Growing
Judicial Rebellion
Against Harsh Sentences
For Ch
ild Pornogra phy
Offenses
- Should the
laws Be Changed?

A History of Escalating Penalties

BY SEN. ARLEN SPECTER AND LINDA DALE HOFFA

Federal criminal sentences should be "sufficient,but not greater than necessary." They should fit

the crime, provide for "adequate deterrence,""protect the public," and promote rehabilitation.'
Since the Supreme Court decisions in Booker and Kimbrough? federal courts again have great discretion,
within certain limits, to decide appropriate federal sentences. Congress, however, has taken pains to limit
t
hat discretion with regard to child pornographoffenses, and the federal courts, in a series of judicial
d
ecisions across the country, including recent Second and Third Circuit decisions, are firmly rebelling: The
quest
ions arise: Are the courts right? Has Congress gone too far in its desire to punish this undesirabltype of criminal conduct?

 

  In 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a report that surveyed the history of child pornography
sentencing, revealing a pattern of direct congressional action that has increased penalties severely over the
past 25 years
.' Congress prompted revisions of the Sentencing Guidelines nine times since 1987, and each
t
ime mandated steeper penalties.' Over that time, the base offense level for transportation, distribution, and
receipt offenses has increased from 13 to 22, and the  base level for possession has increased from 10 to 18.'
Various sentencing enhancements, many of which  apply to nearly all offenders, only substantially increase
sentenc
es further.' The number of convictions also has exploded, rising from a few dozen each year in the
1990s to more than 1,884 in 2010 alone.'

 

When addressing child pornography, Congress has tended to bypass the Sentencing Commission. In 1991,
for example, the Commission argued that its current child pornography Guidelines were stringent enough
an
d noted that the high rate of downward departures indicated that judges and prosecutors felt that the
pen
alties already were too severe.'? Congress nevertheless instructed the Commission to increase base
off
ense levels." The same pattern was repeated in 1995 and 2000.12 Each time, Congress added or expanded
vario
us sentencing enhancements, including an enhancement for use of the computer in the commis-
sion of the offense, w
hich the Commission warned would apply equally regardless of whether an offender

sent one image by email or trafficked in hundreds of images online."

 

The process peaked when Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003, which was "the first and only time to
dat(Congress) directly amended the Guidelines.":' It did so "apparently without seeking any input from the 

Commission."l5 It instructed the Sentencing Commission to include var-ious sentencing enhancements for child
porn
ography crimes, and increased statutory mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for child pornog-
raphy crimes, including receipt and dis-tribution. According to the Commission, the changes more than doubled the average sentences for child pornography crimes." A former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York described the PROTECT Act
as
"the most significant effort to marginalize the role of the Sentencing Commission in the federal sentencing process since the Commission was created by Congress.':"

Impact of Congressional
A
ction

As a result of the actions of Congress, today the Sentencing Guidelines for child pornography often exceed those recommended for more serious crimes. By the time a court tallies a defendant's base offense level and the slew of enhancements "that are all
but inh
erent to the crime of conviction," the current child pornography Guidelines almost always recommend sentences near or exceeding the statutory maximum sentence." Like thdefendant in United States v. Dorvee, a first - time offender convicted of distributing child pornography typically can expect a recommended sentence of 168 to 210 months, close to the 24month statutory maximum." Compare this to the Guideline sentence for an adult who actually has sex with a child (just 151 to 188 months) or to a violent offender with prior convictions who is sentenced for aggravated assault with a firearm that resulted in bodily injury (just 46 to 57 months)."

 

The fact that child pornography offenders can be given longer sentences than child abusers or violent offenders reflects a lack of care by Congress. In the rush to prove itself hostile to individuals who possess or distribute child pornography, Congress has obscured the real distinctions between different offenders. In the words of the Second  Circuit, the current Guidelines wer

"cobbled together;' rather than drafted with purpose.'!

 

Judicial Response

A 2010 survey of federal judges by the Sentencing Commission found widespread dissatisfaction with the current child pornography Guidelines: 70 percent of respondents said the possession ranges were too high, 69 percent said the same for receipt, and 30 percent said the ranges for distribution were excessive." In a May 2010 article in The New York Times, the current Guidelines were described as "outrageously high"and "seriously flawed.'?'  Importantly, judges are using their discretionary sentencing powers under Booker and Kimbrough to indicate their disapproval." They do this by sentencindefendants in child pornography cases below the applicable Guidelines range at a rate much higher than for all othecriminal cases. And each year the federal judges' departure rate for child pornography cases increases significantly. In 2007, federal judges departed ownward

 without government's consent - in child pornography cases 27.2 percent of the time." In 2008, the rate increased to 35.7 percent," and in 2009, it increased to 43 percent." In 2010, federal judges in child pornography sentencings departed below the Guidelines at a rate of 45 percent compared to a departure rate of just 17.8 percent for all other crimes."

 

In Dorvee, the Second Circuit indicated its strong objection to the Guidelines. The court threw out a sentence of 233 months for a first-time offender who had never engaged in any sexual misconduct and who, according to all of the evidence, posed little or no
d
irect threat to children." The court held that the sentence was unreasonable under 18 us.c. § 3553(a) even though it
t
echnically fell within the Guidelines range. More importantly, however, the court also engaged in an extensive discussion about the unreasonableness of the current Guidelines, effectively putting lower court judges on notice that they should ignore them."

In United States v. Grober, the Third Circuit upheld a 60-month sentence the statutory mandatory minimum despite a Guidelines range of over 240 months." Like the Second Circuit, the court discussed the irrationality of the current Guidelines. In particular, the court noted that the Guidelines for child pornography were "not developed pursuant to the [Sentencing) Commission's
institutional role and based on empirical data and national experience.':" Below, the district court had endeavored but failed to find any justification for the Guidelines range."  The lack of an empirical basis fothe current child pornographGuidelines is a common theme amonlower courts. For example, in United States v. Johnson, an Iowa district court judge remarked that the increasepenalties "do not appear to be based oany sort of empirical data, and the courhas been unable to locate any particular rationale for them beyond the generarevulsion that is associated with child exploitation-related offenses." The sam

court criticized as "prohibited by law" the government's proffered statistics purporting to show that the defendant statistically was more likely to commit actual child abuse." In United States v.  Stern, the court recognized that the use of "enhancements" that are present in almost all child pornography cases is "illogical.?" In another case, a court  imposed a sentence of 72 months
despite a Guidelines range of 210-262 months." Some courts in unpublished decisions recently have imposed as little
as one day of jail or home confinement.Of course, for certain crimes, such as receipt and distribution of child

pornography, Congress has established a high statutory mandatory minimum of five years. Judges are powerless to
depart downward in such cases because, unlike drug cases, there is no safety valve provision.

 

Conclusion

With judges and the Sentencing Commission arguing that the current child pornography Guidelines are too harsh, it is time that the issue receives greater public attention. Unfortunately, given the nature of these' crimes and the vulnerability of their victims, the prospects for legislative reforms are not promising. In 1991, when Congress first inserted itself into the work of the
S
entencing Commission, at least one brave lawmaker urged his colleagues to take seriously the expertise and warn-
in
gs of the Commission." However, when the matter came to a vote, not a single member of Congress voted against it." It does not take a seasoned political operative to explain whyApart from continued judiciarebellion, what can be done? At the very

least, the public and lawmakers need to know the facts; they need to know how unfairly disproportionate child pornog-
ra
phy sentences have become and hoCongress' best intentions now mandate unduly severe punishments. Given that

the issue of child pornography generates strong emotions and fears in the public and in the press, establishing an inde-
pendent commission with a strong mandate to study the problem from top to bottom and make recommendations for
comprehensive change may be the best route. Perhaps then Congress, armed with the right information, might act to
do what needs to be done, just as Congress recently did when it passed the  Fair Sentencing Act and revised the
unfair 100-to-1 crack cocaine powder disparity. And even if Congress fails to  act, public awareness of this issue might
b
e the catalyst for change. Until then, an independent judiciary armed with the relevant information will continue to
pr
ovide the protection necessary to assure that no sentence for these offenses will be "greater than necessary" as the
law requires.

 

 

 

 

Attn: Public Affairs Comments 
united states Sentencing Commission 
One Columbus Circle N.E. 
suite 2, 500 South Lobby 
Washington D.C., 20002-8002 
Re: 2G2.2 Sentencing Enhancements 
Dear Commission, 
 

February 2, 2016 
 

 
This Commission knows that the sentencing enhancements under 2G2.2 are harsh and are unsupported by empirical data but are the product of political posturing. The Harvard Law Review (Vol. 124:1082), points out problems such as harshness and severity with the 2G2.2 enhancements compared to other criminal enhancements. Another important study is Troy Stabenow's "Deconstructing the 
Myth of Careful Study:*A Primer on the Flawed Progression of the Child Pornography Guidelines." This Commission now has an opportunity to fix these politically motivated enhancements. 


I am a first time offender of on-line child pornography charges. I was a successful boat captain for 30 years and I had a fine family with two young children. I am now serving a guideline sentence of 210 months of incarceration. My sentence is much longer than many other inmates, who have multiple priors leading to a criminal history category of IV or V. These inmates not only had criminal intent but actual tangible victims of their various crimes. The 2G2.2 enhancement are completely unjust and unfair in relation to other sentencing enhancements. 


Harvard Law Review's article states: "Whereas the united State Sentencing commission (USSC) usually employs empirical methods, the court [2nd Circuit Dorvee] observed that section 2G2.2 has been rendered increasingly harsh - over USSC protest - by a spate of congressional mandates." 

 

The Federal Circuit (11th), assumes that any sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines are reasonable. However, the Harvard article as well as the Stabenow's report states that the 2G2.2 enhancements are not necessarily 
reasonable. Every case is different. Guideline sentences under 2G2.2 are substantively unreasonable in most cases when it comes to "Sufficient but no Greater then Necessary." 


This Sentencing Commission has been correcting many injustices over the last few years. Now it is time for them to consider the 2G2.2 enhancements. All crimes involving children are loaded with emotions. However, it is important to remember tbat the viewers of on-line child pornography did not create the pornography. The commission needs to understand that the majority of men sentenced under 2G2.2 enhancements never made any attempt at physical contact, but found freely available digital images on-line. 
Please correct these draconian sentencing enhancements. Lower all levels of 2G2.2 by 1 or two levels making the changes retroactive. First time offenders need a chance to prove that they only made a mistake, and never had any real criminal intent. Repeat offenders should be sentenced at current levels, but not first timers! 


Thank You, 
Mark Brown, 53540018 
FCI Loretto, Loretto PA 15940 
* Available at http://fd.org/pdf_lib/child20porn20july20revision.pdf 
 

 

 


United States Sentencing Commission 
ATTN:Public Affairs Comments 
One Columbus Circle N.E. 
Suite 2, 500~South Lobby 
Washington, DC 20002-8002 
RE: Public Comment on Upcoming Priority Enhancements Under 2G2.2 ,

Dear United States Sentencing Commission, 


I am writing to express my hope for this duely appointed commission to make correcting the draconian sentencing guidelines for non-production underage pornography offenses its foremost priority.These guideline ranges for namely 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B), 2252(b), and §2252(a) (2), 2252(b) (1) are entirely too harsh, outdated, and fundamentally broken. These guidelines and their enhancements are so broken many Federal Judges from several circuits have refused to apply guideline range sentences,while, at the same time, many Judges from other circuits continue to adhere to them. This completely defeats the purpose of maintaining sentencing 
guidelines in the first place - to provide Federal Sentencing consistently across circuits. 


I feel the use and definition of the charge of 'Receipt' needs to be fully explained and clarified, in the context of file peer-to-peer programs and other modern internet tools. The much more serious charge of 'Receipt,; 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2), §2252(b)(1) may ,be over used and charged inconsistently across our nation. What separates this conduct from simple possession, 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B) and §2252(b)(2)? 

 

The enhancements under 2G2.2 that were originally intended to differentiate the most serious offenders are now being applied to a majority of cases and for the wrong reasons. These enhancements have not kept up with the changes in technology and the common ease of peer-to-peer computer connectivity. Adding a two point enhancement for the use of a computer is telling the courts that possessing a digital copy of a copy of an image is far more serious than possessing the original Polaroid photo, from the event, an actual crime scene evidence. All other enhancements must also be greatly reduced or eliminated for non-production offenses as well. None of these possession enhancements account for the ability for file compression allowing many hundreds or thousands of images per a single download file or other advancements in computer speed and technology. 

 

The base level offense must also be reduced in the guideline range. In many cases the base level suggests a prison term already above the mandatory minimum. This occurs in the charge of 'Receipt' 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2),2252(b)(1) where the base level guideline range is already above the 60 month minimum mandatory. This discrepancy should not be possible at all as it is inverted and needs correction. 
All Commission corrections to the guideline ranges for 2G2.2 should be made retroactive or for clarification as these affect many individuals since peer-to-peer 3636362333

software became widely used. 

0
Thank you very much for your consideration. 
Respectfully signed, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States Sentencing Commission 
One Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite 2-500 
Washington, DC 20002-08002 
Re: Proposed Sentencing Reform 
"Crime of Violence" Defi................+nition. 
Dear Commission, 
 

October 26, 2015 
 

 
Having a charge of possession and or distribution of child pornography can not simply be broad-brushed to mean that I, as a viewer, committed a "violent offense". The producer of child pornography is far removed from the viewer by time and distance. For the majority of cases, viewers found such photos anonymously on-line in the realm of the internet. As 'time' is concerned, months or years after any violent act may have occurred during the productionof any such-material. Using the classification of violent offender, placing the offender of possession of child pornography, someone who was charged with distribution, someone in receipt of, in transport of, under the same harsh label as someone who has had sexual contact with a child clearly distorts the truth and is at the very least misguided. I ask that you allow me, with my offenses, to be included in any sentencing reform that is discussing non-violent offenders. 


Anyone with any type of conscious is passionate about protecting children. Someone who falls into an addiction of pornography needs to have the ability to show that he has been rehabilitated without the unnecessary baggage of being labeled a "violent offender". 
The public's trust in our political system is at an all time low, due to the slanted, unwise posturing of self-serving politicians trying to look 'tough" on crime at the expense of those who make a bad choice. The labeling of crime of violence is especially harsh and debilitating for the first-time offender, and should be addressed in the current efforts for sentencing reform. 
Please correct this mislabeling of those charged with non-contact, non- solicited, non-production charges. The Bureau of Prisons uses the label of "violent offender" when classifying me, thus denying me opportunities.Please include this letter in the "Issues for Comment" section of the United States Sentencing Commission proposal to amend Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of 
the sentencing guidelines. 
Sincerely, 

 

Mark Brown Fed #53540-018 
FCI  Loretto 
P.O. Box 1000 
Loretto, PA 15940 
PS: Sufficient but no greater than necessary, does not mean 210 months of prison 

 

 

 

FROM: S C, U S
TO: 76273083

SUBJECT: ACTION ALERT: LETTER TO THE USSC REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
DATE
: 10/12/201510:51:06 PM

ACTION ALERT: Letters to the USSC request for public comment:

We are urging you to respond to the USSC'S request for public comment on a proposed amendment to revise the "crime of
violence" definition
.

Written Public Comment regarding the proposed amendment should be received by the Commission no later than November
12,2015 ..

Below is a sample letter you may wish to use. Please remember to sign your name, date and provide return address
informat
ion.

We are urging REGULAR MAIL (volume counts) and to get as many family and friends to respond to ASAP:

Before the deadline of NOVEMBER 12, 2015.

United States Sentencing Commission
One Co
lumbus Circle, N.E. Suite 2-500
Washington
, DC 20002-8002

Attention: Public Affairs

Re: Proposed Amendment to Section 4B 1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines, "Crime of Violence" Definition

To Whom it May Concern:

In response to request for public comment, I am writing this letter to share my personal belief that possession of chiid
pornography should be e
xcluded from the definition of a "forcible sex offense". Non production possession, receipt,
transportation or distribution of child pornography does not meet the criteria of being a sexual act or of having sexual contact
.
Therefore it should be excluded as a violent sexual act.

Using the classification of violent offender placing the offender under the same label as someone who has had sexual contact
with a child distorts the truth and is at the very leas
t misguided. (If you wish to include a BRIEF PERSONAL STORY- we
suggest two to three sentences).

We are all passionate about protecting our children however, we have taken this passion to a level where we are applying a
definition that does no
t fit the crime and using this to perpetuate a life time of punishment. Therefore, I would like this letter to be
entered as pub
lic comment to item 4 (D) in the "Issues for Comment" section of the United States Sentencing Commission
proposal to amend Section
4B1.2(a)(2) of the sentencing guidelines.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Your Name
Return Address 

 

United States Sentencing Commission 
One Columbus Circle. N.E. Suite 2-50J 
Washington. DC 20002-08002 
Re: Proposed Amendment to Section 481.2 
"Crime of Violence" Definition. 
Dear Commission. 
 

October 16. 2015 
 

 
I am currently serving a very, very long sentence of 210 months of incarceration due to my actions of viewing pornography 
including online child pornography. At the time I was blind to an addiction to all types of pornography, and any possible harm I 
may have caused. I was ignorant also, since I never sought or attempted to have any "active" participation of anything to do 
with a minor. Now, as a father and a sober man, I realize how wrong my ignorance was. I look at this as the same as Global 
Warming, no matter if you believe it is happening due to man or not, one thing is sure, we sure are not helping the situation. 
Therefore my viewing child pornography sure did not do anything to help a bad situation. I now know how harmful my online 
activity may have been to the welfare of innocent people. But to this day, as God is my Witness, there is no evidence that I ever, 
harmed anyone personally or cause any other to harm someone. I have never been involved with any contact, any persuasion, any 
e n t I c e m e n t s or anything close to the nature of violence. In my case, this was confirmed by a polygraph by a retired FBI expert 
polygrapher.  


Using the classification of violent Offender, placing me in the same category and label as someone that actually abused or 
had sexual contact with a child vastly distorts the truth and is very misleading, unjustly prejudicing me by not allowing me to be 
included during this time of needed sentencing reform. I am very passionate about protecting all children, however 
many politicians have taken this passion to a level were applying a definition that does not fit the crime, allowing some of us in 
prison a perpetual life-time punishment along with being left out of sentence reform. I would therefore like this letter to be 
entered as public comment to item 4(D) in the "Issues for Comment” section of the United States Sentencing Commission 
proposal to amend Section 481 .2(a) (2) of the sentencing guidelines. 
Sincerely, 
Mark Brown Fed #53540-018 
FCI Loretto 
P.O. Box 1000 
Loretto, PA 15940 

 


P.S. For more on Mr. Brown see www.myshipwreck.com 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Honorable Clerk 
United States Supreme Court 
One First Street N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20543 
 

September 21, 2015 
 

 
Dear Clerk, 
Thank you. No matter what you decide, thank you for a least considering 
my pro se motion for a writ of certiorari. I wish I could fill in with a good 
joke to lighten up your work day, but I'm not a very good comedian. Truth be 
known, I am not a very good pro se litigant either. What I am, is a very good 
8\boat captain (by trade), with two children whom are now growing up without any 
guidance from their father. I am currently incarcerated for a term of 210 
month followed with 30 years supervised released. Within the U.S.S.C. 
Guidelines range, but one that, according to renowned experts, is far greater 
than what’s 'sufficient but no greater than necessary'. Defense experts were 
completely ignored as shown in the court transcripts; Judge Lazarra, "I don't 
care what the experts have said  ...• "s. 
I am a 57 year old first time offender. I knew absolutely nothing about 
the legal process. I was at the mercy of a hired attorney. An attorney hired 
by my mother and sister whom they trusted. An attorney that said all the right 
things to them assured them, all the talk of a politician. Lots of talk, but 
no real action. And a complete failure in doing any investigations or 
negotiation for me. 
During my 'plea hearing' Judge Lazarra told me that I would fail in any 
attempt to come back with any ineffective assistance of counsel claim, because 
he knew Attorney Suarez as a fine attorney from his days as a "young 
prosecutor". The Court had already made up their mind, long before my §2255 
motion for IAOC was ever filed. 
Without merit, is a term that the Eleventh Circuit seems to have adopted 
too often. The courts never even read my motions, much less than a 'liberal 
reading', but solely relied upon the government's version. I have tried to 
carefully point out in the Statement of the Case, (enclosed motion), important 
dates that are reflected in my §2255 motion that my Rule 60 motion challenged. 
I point out letters and e-mails, along with incorrect "Information", all 
that the defense attorney ignored. The court ordered the defense attorney to 
provide all correspondence between us. His response was only a self-serving 
four page affidavit along with a brief letter to the probation office. The 
letter to the probation office became critical in the government's 
misconstrued answer to the legality of VIS's. His affidavit bluntly was a lie. 
This was clearly pointed out in my request for COA in my Rule 60 motion that 
the Eleventh Circuit completely ignored. As my Question One points out, the 
Court never even answered this question. 
I now pray that this Court of 'Last Resort', remand my case back to the 
Eleventh Circuit to correct their critical mistakes. Thank you so much for 
your patient reading of my motion and please help me regain confidence in our 
Judicial System. 


M. Brown, 53540018 FCI Loretto, P.O. Box 1000, Loretto PA 15940 

 

 

 

 

WIFES    HUSBANDS

 

 

DON'T CLICK - DANGERS SURFING THE WEB

While checking your e-mails, you open an attachment from a friend or co-worker. After all it’s from a reliable source and your software automatically scans for any viruses. Up comes a picture of another beautiful woman, naked and definitely pornographic in nature. You know you shouldn't but now the 'beast' hasstarted, all because of a darn e-mail. Next thing you know you are 'surfing'.

''What else can I find today?"This is what a pornography addict fears everyday. He doesn't really go online to look, or seek. But that damn e-mail from Frank, or Jim got him started.Isn't it just a normal manly response? Erotica, what harm does it really cause?

To many wives this has become a strain in their marriage. If you suspect yourspouse spends too much time on-line, pornography may be a problem. Please printthis article out, and place by his computer. This is up to date information on howthe US Justice System

deals with viewers of child-pornography. It's all starts outas an addiction to adult pornography!

That is how I felt for several years. "What else can I find today?" I became morally blind while I hunted for on-line pornography, entering the dark, dangerous side as I fed my addiction. I did not want to admit that I was addicted to on-line porn. But I was. I looked forward to 'getting on-line'. I would make time forit. Yet, I was happily married and loved my wife. However, I became blind to an

addiction that affected my marriage which has now ended. I had an addiction thatwas out of control. In my subconscious I must have known the dangers as I often wrote in on-line chats, "This is worse than drugs".Too late; 'On September 30, 2010, I was arrested. All because of an addiction to pornography, this included child pornography. I have spent the last four years

in federal prison, having lost everything I worked for. I have lost my beautiful wife, two great children, my home, fabulous job and every bit of my retirement account. All I have now is time. Nothing but time to try to get my 210 month (17~years) incarceration reduced. What I thought would be a slap on the wrist, went south in a heart beat by a severely prejudicial justice system. A system that does
seldom distinguishes between the ones who create child pornography and the addicts that get caught up in viewing all types of pornography including that child pornography. That is why viewing all types of pornography on-line are dangerous.

 

The American public (80) never becomes involved with the judicial system. The public believes the courts are 'fair' and 'balanced'. That is definitely not the case. In the USA Today's, October 17, 2014 edition, journalist Ann Oldenburg writes, "Grisham Backs off Child-Porn Comments". In the story, noted author John Grisham was chastised for stating his point of view on the problems with harsh

sentencing of viewers of child pornography. John Grisham correctly stated how harshly society punishes the 'viewers'.

Even when there is no evidence of viewers ever coming into any kind of contact with minors; Viewers that happen to fall into the clutches of pornography addiction, and due to such addiction, find themselves clicking on to the wrong
websites - all freely available. Grisham talks about the dracionian lengthy sentences handed down by the federal judicial system.

These lengthy sentences are so severe because politicians use any type of crime against children to their political advantage. They have voted 'enhancements' into law which makes the politician look very 'tough' on crime, especially crimes against children. One serious error is that these enhancements were never shown to be needed, and the sciences behind these lengthy sentence do
not support the severity. Most of the enhancements were never discussed in chambers but slipped into appropriation bills to fund the Gulf War.It is important to understand that while 'hunting porn' on-line, and with just a few clicks of the mouse, the punishment rises in severity from a basic sentence of 00 months to unconscionable severity. Another click and so forth and the "average" sentencing guideline are over 180 months of incarceration. Judges are not required to follow the sentencing guidelines. But in reality, some Judges hold a normal prejudice and do not make any distinction between viewers and producers. These enhancements allow judges to 'put away' pornography addicts longer than many major drug dealers. It is not uncommon to find cases of murder doing less tine of

incarceration then a man that merely 'looked' at child pornography. Just watch the crime show 48 HOURS to see the disparities in sentencing. It's an easy selling of votes for the local politician, "I made punishment tougher because I am your man
to protect the children". Of course children need to be protected, and child abusers need just punishment. Certain individuals need severe punishment. However, the judicialsystem has become so far out of step with reality. Experts have testified over and

over that the majority of viewers never come in any inappropriate contact withchildren. Led by some social groups, and thirsty attorneys, there is a massive campaign to sway the judicial system. And it has worked! Viewers of child pornography often serve sentences that are harsher then actual child abusers. Don’t believe it? Well here is an example, check out the Pittsburg Tribune on

October 15, 2014, an article by Adam Brandolph, "Child abuse sentence assailed". Mr. Brandolph tells about a former state prosecutor Douglas Barbour, along with his wife, who were charged with child abuse. Their adopted or foster children, one
age 5 years old was found malnourished and their 19 month old child was showing signs of healing fractures. The father was sentenced to five years 'probation' while his wife was sentenced to six to twelve months in jail. She is allowed to go home six days a week to take care of their two biological children while her husband works. This sentence was issued to a couple that did actual harm and
damage to two innocent children. This was no doubt too light a sentence for such crime. Federal pornographyand state sentencing guidelines differ tremendously. charges come under federal authorities due to what Most childis called "interstate commerce". By using a computer, the federal authorities will try to take any charges away from state authorities and bring federal charges which are

much more severe than state judicial systems. Sentencing authorities (congress) illogically determined that child pornography viewing is one of the root causes of child abuse. "If there were fewer viewers, there would not be so much child pornography made and pos ted on-line." While I now admit, viewers do no t help the situation, but that logic has many flaws. Meanwhile the elected politicians are
afraid to correct the inconsistency of sentences.While you are reading this, remember, once charged with child pornography,

people assume the worse. Your close friends will pull away from you. The American public will not see that it may all be caused because of an addiction, but they all assume that you are a pedophile! That is hard to live with, trust me. The viewer of CP will be blamed for all evils of child abuse. Remember that as you "surf”.

 

 

Yes viewers bear some responsibility but there are several questions. One is, why do the media not look at the root causes of child abuse and then deal with the issues that cause the pain and misery. When you look at child abuse, there are many causes. Poverty creates much of the world victims. Young runaways are scooped up of the streets by opportunist. Here in the United States, we find drug abuse having a large role. It is hard for a sober individual to ever contemplate any harm to their own children, yet when the single mother or father becomes addicted to drugs, who is paying attention to the children? . What the public does not know is how the Government themselves can contribute and cause continued harm and mental anguish on victims of child pornography. Over

zealous prosecutors tell the media how victim of child pornography feel victimized every time someone looks at their picture on-line. Yet it is the governmentprosecutors themselves that notify these poor and sensitive victims. Yes, the federal government attorneys themselves feed the pain and suffering of the victims. If the prosecutor did not notify these victims, they would never know an
anonymous person viewed them. What you do not know, will not harm you! So it becomes the prosecutors that are continuing to cause pain, along with attorneys that are trying to profit from these poor victims. While I am in federal prison for viewing child pornography, I am surprisedhow many inmates incarcerated for drug dealing activity; fail to see how they themselves may have contributed to harming children. They could theoretically cause more harm then viewers of pornography. But to them, it is business, and they

use excuses why it has nothing to do with them. Society or at least the current administration believes that the African

American is unjustly over sentenced. So lately there has been a move to reform the sentencing guidelines of federal inmates. These past year drug offenders were awarded a downward departure from their current sentencing. Viewers of child pornography were also going to be included in that same measure because of the harsh sentencing, yet they, the sentencing commission, dropped that provision so as to get the votes to pass the "drug - 2" program. But looking at studies, you will find that the average middle age man, viewing child pornography, who has never shown any real intentions of any other action against children, and never been in any trouble, are serving much more severe sentences than the average drug incarcerated inmate that has been in prison more than once.

 

 

So please stop and think. Seriously, this is for real! That e-maiI of the next beautiful woman may be that trigger that starts a downward spiral. Please, admit to yourself that you may have a problem. Talk to your spouse. Look to others; seek advice if you look forward to a session of on-line pornography. By taking steps now, it may just save the life that you know, and yes, you may also save the life of some young innocent child. Stop and seek counseling!

Federal Inmate 53540-018
Mark Brown

FCI Loretto

 

 

Below you will find the information for the RSOL affiliates of many states. Please contact the one 
nearest you and get involved! 


Arkansas -Arkansas Time After Time Website: http'Uwwwarkansastjmeaftertjme.org  Address: P.O. Box 11491, Conway, AR 72034 
    Phone: 501-444-2828     Email: rsol@arkansastimeaftertime.org 


California - Califomia RSOL     Website: http'lLcalifomjarsol org Address: ACLU Building, 1313 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 
    Phone: 805-896-7854     Email: jmbellucci@aol.com 


Colorado - Colorado Advocates for Change Website: wwwadvocates4change org Address: P.O. Box 351032 Westminster, CO 80035 
Phone: 720-329-9096 Email: advocates4changeafc@yahoo.com 


Colorado - Coalition for Sexual Offense Restoration (CSOR) Website: www csor-home org Address: PO Box 20751, Denver, CO 80227 
Phone: 720-690-7125 Email: susancwalker1@gmail.com 


Connecticut - Connecticut Voices Website: wwwconnectjcut-vojces org Address: PO Box 9534 New Haven, CT 06534 
Email: contact@connecticut-voices.org 


Florida - Florida Action Committee Website: wwwfloddaactjoncommjttee org Address: PO Box 470932, Lake Monroe, FL 32747 
Phone: 904-438-8FAC Email: gail@fioridaactioncommittee.org 


Illinois - Illinois Voices Website: http'Uwwwilvojces com     Address: P.O. Box 959114, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 
Email: angie@ilvoices.com  Email 2:will@ilvoices.com 

 
Maryland - Families Advocating Intelligent Registries Website: http'Uwwwfajrregjstryorg Address: PO Box 8402, Elkridge, MD 21075 
Phone: 301-779-1965 Email: info@fairregistry.org  

Michigan - Michigan Citizens for Justice Website: http'Uwwwmjcjtjzensforjustjce com! Address: 12393 St. Michel Ave., Romeo, MI48065 
Phone: 248-229-2698 Email: reformsolaw_mi@yahoo.com 


Nebraska - Nebraskans Unafraid Website: nebraskansllnafrajd org nebraskarsol com Address: PO Box 6705, Omaha, NE 68106 
Phone: 402.403.9250 Email: nunafrd@gmail.com 


New Mexico - Liberty and Justice Coalition Website: http'Ursolnm org Address: P.O. Box 36123, Albuquerque, NM 87176 
Phone: 505-832-4291 Email: sataaran1@yahoo.com EmaiI2:rs2477@cyberroesa.com 


Oklahoma - Oklahoma RSOL Website: wwwok-rsol org Address: PO Box 1474, ryluskogee, OK 74402 
Phone: (918) 261-1757 Email: rsol.ok@gmail.com Email2:info.okrsol@yaboo.com 


Texas - Texas Voices for Reason and Justice Website: http'/ltexasvojces org Address: PO 23539, San Antonio, 78223 
Phone: 877-215-6688 Email: marysueintx@yahoo.com 


Remember to visit us on Facebook. Like us. Share our site with others. 

 

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
© Sue Brown