"Hakim life matters too..."

STATE BOARD OF PARDONS and PAROLES
RECORD OF BOARD
The Board welcomes contact with persons about any case. Bylaw information regarding a person (such as inmate's) contacting the Board "on behalf of" an inmate becomes public record. Names of persons contacting the Board not "on behalf of" an inmate (such as a victim or victim's family member) are not public record and are kept confidential.
(O.C.G.A. 42-94 8) For further information you may contact the Parole Board at 404 656 5651.
INMATE INFORMATION: Hakim, Mckee, Inmate number: 1101200
CONTACT INFORMATION
DATE: 11/18/2017
Last Name: McKee, First: Paulette Ml:
RELATIONSHIP TO lNMATE: Mother, also this petition which is signed by 2,150 other family members, friends, and community at change.org

Have you requested or received, or will you request or receive, any fee or other valuable consideration for making this contact with the State Board of Pardons and Paroles? No
(O.C.G.A. 42-94 6)

Are you a licensed attorney? No
Are you an active member of the State Bar of Georgia? No
Are you a member of the General Assembly? No
(O.C.G.A. 42-9-17)
Do you hold public office or any position with the state, a county, a municipality or any authority or entity receiving tax payer's funds? No

METHOD OF CONTACT: Change.org/Email/Mail
REASON CONTACT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE INMATE:
Request for favorable reconsideration of current Board decision below:
MCKEE FAMILY TRUST
Comes now, the MCKEE family and community support. We are at a loss so we decided to petition members of the Pardons and Paroles Board and others in support.
We are dissatisfied with the most recent decision you made regarding HAKIM'S parole eligibility, as well as the inadequate counselor's performance at the institution. No one informed Hakim of his right to an appeal nor did anyone secure him with the appeal application this second time around. That was very unprofessional; in this type of case "lifer" should be informed and given an appeal form.
We believe that you and your staff may not have had all the pertinent information needed to consider the fact that HAKIM was also a victim in this case. For that reason, we are still trying to understand why you are continuing to cruelly and unusually punish him? Why are you holding him totally responsible for the doings of another man's hands, actions, and independent decision making? This was not and still is not a mystery. The fact is that HAKIM was negligently plotted against after the state lost their first trial against the actual perpetrator (Rickey Brown), who was found not guilty as a result of the state's lack of evidence presented. Ricky Brown had a violent history; in fact, after he was released he committed another mistaken murder, but the last time it happened to be a four-year-old little girl. Even before these two cases, Brown had been accused of the exact same charges; his history is known for violence. Hakim did not have a violent history, not before or after.
Also, We would point out some factors in the case:
Hakim's conviction was due to the event that HAKIM did not testify on behalf the state (see Brown v. State 2001). This was, however, critical, leaving the state with no other option but to pursue HAKIM as the primary target after losing Brown's trial.
* "Just think if it wasn't a perpetrator, then there could be no co-defendant" technically.
However, none of the evidence presented pointed directly to HAKIM as perpetrator other than the prejudiced evidence that was allowed to be used in exchange for undisclosed (DEAL) agreements. We have those affidavits and witness as evidence and will present them anytime at your request.
*This was the starting point of HAKIM becoming victimized in this matter.
*Once the state prosecutor sat aside their oath just to secure a conviction, only then did Hakim became their primary target.
NOTE: It is unconstitutional but more or less illegal in an indictment charging a party with a crime where there are only one set of facts and evidence behind the event. To prosecute one defendant theory as a perpetrator and come back and prosecute another defendant as the perpetrator is an illegal issue as a matter of law, but it was done in Hakim's case. The Fulton County District Attorney's Office pursued the case initially as a case of intent; intent to harm, hurt, rob or murder the victim. The victim was an innocent bystander, there is no way you can find intent in an intentional homicide. It was from their investigation that they believed the defendant (Rickey Brown) to be the perpetrator. This was because they knew Brown was the perpetrator from the original investigation. However, they couldn't convict two people with the exact same theory but with evidence proving there could only be one perpetrator. That's an illegal matter of law that no other authority has ever addressed nor corrected. Still, his conviction stands, and just as the conviction stands it's illegal, but yet you would rather hold HA...