20 YEARS of SCAMS EXPOSED IN THE CORRUPT MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM

  

These GOVERNMENT PERJURERS delete this portion of Michigan Law to TRICK actually innocent people into unconscionable Plea "Bargains" and PRISON :

"... if that person KNOWS that THE child is A CHILD... " mcl 750.145c2

t

=====================================================================================

but gleefully use this phrase deceptively & unlawfully for fraudulent prosecutions: 

        "... in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor. "

 

             Legally it pertains to while online believes the REQUIRED minor IS a minor [see 2002 PA 45 ] and discovered AFTER the In-Person Crime is committed .

 ===============================================================

The 11 crimes listed in MCL750.145d1a have been around long before

 the Internet ( 1931 PA 328 ) -- the Michigan Legislature simply added extra

 penalties if a Computer / Internet was used to facilitate an in-person crime 

 committed or attempted against the minor child

( kidnapping, conspiracy to commit crime ,carry away a child,accost a child, sexually abuse THE child, criminal sexual conduct in 1st, 2nd,3rd & 4th degree , assault to commit csc , in-person sales adult materials, ) 145a, 145c, 157c, 349, 350, 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g, or section 5 of 1978 PA 33, MCL 722.675

convictions at any cost no matter how unlawful & unjust

PROOFS: 

1. The Laws as-written - ( by Michigan legislature - not as altered by cons in office )

2. Jury Instructions  ( by Mich Supreme Ct appointed Committee ) 

3. 2002 Public Act 45   ( believe online that The Child is a child instead of knowing it online )

4. The prosecutor WILL NOT VALIDLY CHARGE ANY OF THE 11 real crimes in a sting operation.

5. United States Constitution's Confrontation Clause demands an actual victim.

6.The Law or Rule of Lenity requires criminal statutes to be read in the least oppressive manner to the defendant. 

7. Michigan prosecutors only charge tiny fractions of statutes in the stings and are bereft of subject matter jurisdiction in their twisted , perverted , unlawful ,unconstitutional acts for 20 LONG YEARS OF FRAUD in INTENTIONALLY defective prosecutions demonstrating the prosecutors and court officials are criminals who kidnap / extort / defame / perjure / tamper / lie / assault their victims

( mostly white males are targeted  = RACISM BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ?)

=====================================================

JURY INSTRUCTIONS  : ( kept hidden from juries )

 

M Crim Jury Instruction 35.10 Use of a Computer to Commit Specified Crimes : 

(1)    The defendant is charged with using a computer to [ attempt to commit] the offense of [any of 11 in-person crimes listed in 750.145d1a]1 [against a minor]  <<<<< that REQUIRED bracketed phrase is in the instructions under:

Use Note 1   [ which lists the 11 IN PERSON crimes of mcl 750.145d1a ]

SEE: https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/criminal-jury-instructions/Documents/HTML/Criminal%20Jury%20Instructions-Responsive%20HTML5/index.html#t=Criminal_Jury_Instructions%2FCrim_Jury_Ch_35%2FM_Crim_JI_35_10_Use_of_a_Computer_to_Commit_Specified_Crimes.htm

Child Sexually Abusive Activity Jury Instructions: 

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/criminal-jury-instructions/Documents/HTML/Criminal%20Jury%20Instructions-Responsive%20HTML5/index.html#t=Criminal_Jury_Instructions%2FCrim_Jury_Ch_20%2FM_Crim_JI_20_38_Child_Sexually_Abusive_Activity_%25E2%2580%2593_Causing_or.htm

No Jury Instructions exist for  violating MCL722.675 1978 PA 33 WHILE ONLINE ONLY  because the Fed Courts banned that but Mike Cox , Kelly Carter, Anica Letica, Ricky Cunningham and numerous County Judges Sosnick / Bondy / Alexander in Oakland County Pontiac Michigan are in contempt of  Federal Court Order that permanently enjoined 1999 Public  Act 33, mcl 722.675 . 

All charges / convictions / sentences / re-sentences / orders from ANY court are absolutely WORTHLESS in these matters

=======================================================================================

The Corrupt Prosecutors Manipulate the Police to

Act as Instruments of Oppression & Tyranny

MCL 750.145d1a : A person shall not use the internet or a computer, ...to communicate with any person for the purpose of doing..the following:

  (a) Committing, attempting to commit, .... conduct proscribed under section 

145a, 145c, 157c, 349, 350, 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g, or section 5 of 

1978 PA 33, MCL 722.675 -

 

[  THINK ABOUT IT: 1978,,, NO Internet in 1978... ALL 11 crimes are IN PERSON ONLY  ]

"... in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor. "

 

While online believes the REQUIRED minor IS a minor - 

  - It does NOT STATE: "  Whether or not the victim or intended victim is a minor "

 To Properly charge 1978 PA 33 with Internet statute MCL750.145d2 is when an offender ONLINE lures the minor to an in-person meeting to sell , lend , rent , lease or exhibit FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN any adult content materials.

 

Commercial Activity online never qualifies as an offense committed, if it were then 12 billion pages and their website owners must be prosecuted NOW !

                  The "defense" attorneys and Michigan judges play right along .

     Police Departments do not investigate " those crimes " as one PD Clerk Krupp stated

RESULT: INTENTIONAL kidnappings BY court officers- See:mcl 750.349(a)(e) & Title 18 USC ss 1201

 

Defamed / Extorted victims & taxpayers / Ruined Families

 THEY WILL NOT ADMIT THEIR CRIMES

NOR ORDER ENTITLED RELIEF TO ANY OF THEIR SUFFERING VICTIMS

=====================================================================================

MICHIGAN'S LEGISLATION IS CRYSTAL CLEAR:

 "amended House Bill 5449 of 2001 (Public Act 45 of 2002)....Revise, and eliminate requirement of knowledge of age of child  for certain other sex-related crimes. "MCL750.145a et seq

It does NOt say:

"eliminate requirement of child"

 The requirement of a minor victim remains since 1931 Public Act 328

      ==========================================================

EXAMPLES:

Count I: 22 words of mcl750.145c2 were 'charged' out of 152 words [ 2006 wording ]

Non-Stop FRAUD, Deception & Trickery to CON 1,000's into Plea "Bargains" and keeping the law COMPLETELY OUT OF SIGHT OF THE JURIES and DEFENDANTS who have dozens of grounds to sue  - see: http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civilmenu.html for 270 reasons to sue CORRUPT officials

CountII: 5 words ( penalty only ) of 47  from mcl750.145d2f -using a computer to "violate" Count I - which  requires the 152 words of Count I to be legally activated for prosecutions

Count III: "charged" a partial title to mcl722.675 - (for ONLINE ONLY ACTIONS of innocent people)

 - a title is  not part of the law and has no force of law -

 

 ZERO WORDS charged  out of 210 ... = ABSOLUTE BS 

                

Then combined with 5 penalty only words of Prohibited Internet Use statute: mcl750.145d2c  a commercial activity only applicable to brick & mortar bookstores selling adult content materials-

 

- Internet only prosecutions places themselves in Contempt of Federal Court Order re: 1999 Public Act 33

ILLUSORY SLEIGHT-OF-HAND deceptions

that DO NOT CHARGE ANY LAW yet 1000s are convicted and sent to PRISON

============================================================================

    Incredible Acts of Deceit by former AG  and County Judges for 20 years - 

THEY TAMPER LAWS, WITNESSES, JURIES, EVIDENCE, MEDIA & THE PUBLIC

Petition example https://void-judgments.com/brief-petition-to-vacate.html

____________________________________________________________________________________

Heading 2

EXONERATING JURY INSTRUCTIONS

WERE  HIDDEN

COUNT I: mcl750.145c2:  22 of 152 words in the actual 2006 wording of the statute charged = INVALID for prosecution .

Jury Instructions: 

M Crim JI 20.38 Child Sexually Abusive Activity – Causing or Allowing  

(1)    The defendant is charged with the crime of causing or allowing a child to engage in sexually abusive activity in order to create or produce child sexually abusive material. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2)    First, that the defendant [persuaded / induced / enticed / coerced / caused / knowingly allowed] a child under 18 years old to engage in child sexually abusive activity.

(5)    Third, that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person was less than 18 years old, or failed to take reasonable precautions to determine whether the person was less than 18 years old.3

3 The statute lists several alternatives for this element of the offense in MCL 750.145c(2), (3), and (4):

 . . . if that person knows, has reason to know, or should reasonably be expected to know that the child is a child ... or that person has not taken reasonable precautions to determine the age of the child.

        NO  AUTHORITY  WHATSOEVER  FOR  STING  OPS

or

ONLINE SURVEILLANCE by Michigan Officials

Using a Computer to log onto the Internet and violate NO VALID LAW

using MCL 750.145d2c & d2f = prosecuted for logging onto the Internet

[ Sidebar : Check YouTube concerning Oakland County Probate Court's HORRIFIC abuse of Elderly Citizens-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0P5SZh5LEg 

MCL 750.145d :

(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime as follows:

(c) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years or more but less than 4 years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(f) If the underlying crime is a felony punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years or more or for life, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

".... Indeed, Plaintiffs could not successfully mount such a challenge because, with the exception of the last five (5) years when the failed internet provisions were added and eventually stricken,  

Constitutionality: Act 33 of 1999 violates the First Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from enforcing any provisions of 1999 PA 33.

Cyberspace Communications, Inc v Engler, 142 F Supp 2d 827 (ED Mich, 2001).

Dissemination as per mich law is inapplicable to Yahoo Adults Only Chat of 2007

MCL 752.362 Definitions; C to O.

  

  (2) "Disseminate" means to manufacture, sell, lend, rent, publish, exhibit, or lease to the public for commercial gain or to offer or agree to manufacture, sell, lend, rent, publish, exhibit, or lease to the public for commercial gain.

A “void judgment” as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken there under, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97

A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all. By it no rights are divested; from it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless, in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are necessarily equally worthless, and have no effect whatever upon the parties or matters in question. A void judgment neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it, and all claims flowing out of it, are absolutely void. The parties attempting to enforce it are trespassers." High v. Southwestern Insurance Company, 520 P.2d 662, 1974 OK 35 (Okla. 03/19/1974);

and, A void judgment cannot constitute res judicata. Denial of previous motions to vacate a void judgment could not validate the judgment or constitute res judicata, for the reason that the lack of judicial power inheres in every stage of the proceedings in which the judgment was rendered. Bruce v. Miller, 360 P.2d 508, 1960 OK 266 (Okla. 12/27/1960).

                                                           THE MORE INMATES ----- THE MORE FUNDING

The judges , prosecutors , 'defense' , clerks don't even come close to following their own court rules, their  laws,

their oaths or BAR association oath.

 

                                         VERY UNLAWFUL ACTIONS BY THESE CON ARTISTS WITH GUNS

ATTN FBI 

While Crossing State Lines Electronically Michigan's 

Court Officials intentionally violated this for the last 20 years

People v Swain is continually regurgitated to deny and obstruct justice by Oakland County Court

People v Adkins and People v Thousand are ABOMINATIONS by the Corrupt Michigan Court System since they

INTENTIONALLY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LAW AS WRITTEN ( see those final 61 words in the 2007 wording of MCL 750.145C2 ....) THESE  COURT PANELS  BELONG IN PRISON .... 

 

They butcher laws then KIDNAP / DEFAME / EXTORT their victims .

 

Michigan AG Dana Nessel Nov 23rd, 2020 : "... intentionally making a false claim[s] of criminal activity to law enforcement [ like AG Mike Cox and dozens of Assistant AGs repeatedly DO for decades] is itself a crime."

Michigan State Police are gutless to investigate

and the STATE AG Office has NO INTERNAL AFFAIRS

They manifest their own definition of HUMAN TRAFFICKERS

 

MICHIGAN COURTS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CHANGE LAWS 

SO, the 11 crimes in mcl 750.145d1a :

Accost a Child In-Person, find out later it was from an online introduction ( believe in person the individual was under 16 after the Internet communication/s )

Child Sexually Abusive Activity: In-person Child Sexually Abusive Activity and knowledge thereof, after the online intro believing The child was A Child ( a child victim and knowing such is required )

Criminal Sexual Conduct :  -- how can csc 1st,2nd,3rd or 4th degree be online? 

Kidnapping a Child :    How does an offender kidnap a child online ?

Carrying a Child away:  Kinda hard to do with pixels,,,it must be in-person

Disseminate ( SELL ) Adult Materials: ONLY in-person, but these sideshows charged online CHATTERS with the mcl 722.675 commercial activity statute

Side bar: Face Masks and how USELESS they are:

According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask

© 2023 by Name of Site. Proudly created with Wix.com