20 Yrs CORRUPT COURT ACTIONS via TAMPERED LAWS
MICHIGAN COURT OFFICERS COMMITTED MANY FELONIES INCLUDING:
1. Contempt of Federal Court Order 1999 PA 33 , and
2. State/Fed Kidnapping Statutes violated: See below
FAKE SEX CRIMES and 1000s of VOID CONVICTIONS
10,000s of Years of Illegal Sentences for HUGE COURT PROFITS -Fake 'defense' ATTORNEYS RAKING IT IN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Flint unauthorized Ghost Stings have STOPPED after this Website Created
MICHIGAN'S LEGISLATIVE INTENT 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. " 145a et seq
It does NOt say:"eliminate requirement of child"
That requirement remains since 1931 Public Act 329
But the AG & County Courts conspired together to unlawfully alter numerous statutes
Heading 2
The Perjury-ridden " CASES" charged 4 % [ 37 words out of 877 ] of the statutes in the INFORMATION FELONY in order to fabricate probable cause and DECEIVE innocent people to do plea " bargains"
[ BTW: 20 words of that 37 being the penalty portions ! ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXONERATING JURY INSTRUCTIONS
WERE PURPOSELY KEPT HIDDEN
TO MAKE ARRESTS LOOK LEGIT:
TRULY SOME VERY SICK DEMENTED DERANGED ILLEGAL ACTIONS
BY the Prosecutors / Police / Court Officers / MDOC:
COUNT I: 22 words from MCL750.145c2's 152 words " charged" [ The Attorney General's Office and Oakland County Judges removed ALL the Essential Elements and pretended that valid cases were being prosecuted ] :
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
( a dozen armed criminals/ swamp rats extorting millions from the duped Public )
or
ONLINE SURVEILLANCE BY THE CORRUPT AG TASK FORCE
COUNTs II, III & IV: Using a Computer to log onto the Internet and violate NO VALID LAW
MCL 750.145d2c & d2f : ABSOLUTE GARBAGE MANIFESTING KIDNAPPING & DEFAMATIONs
M Crim JI 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 [22 Words of MCL 750.145c2]1 [against a minor].2 To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant used [the Internet / a computer ]3 to communicate with any person.
(3) Second, that the communication was done for the purpose of [ attempting to commit] the offense of [22 Words of MCL 750.145c2].
[Use the following paragraph only if the underlying offense appears in Part A of the underlying offense list in Use Note 1.]
(4) Third, that the [ NOT APPLICABLE-NO NAME-NO VICTIM ] was a minor or the defendant believed [he / she] was a minor. [ Believed THE minor was a minor -- instead of KNEW The minor was a minor ]
(5) The elements of [14% of MCL 750.145c2] are [1.a child , 2. knowledge thereof 3. committing CSAA with THE child ]. It does not matter whether the defendant or anyone else has been convicted of [14% of MCL750.145c2].
Use Note
1 The statute lists the following underlying offenses:
Part A
MCL 750.145—accosting a child for immoral purposes
MCL 750.145c—child sexually abusive activity [--- Count I ]-( 22 / 152 words)
MCL 750.349—kidnapping
MCL 750.350—enticing away child under 14
MCL 750.520b—criminal sexual conduct in the first degree
MCL 750.520c—criminal sexual conduct in the second degree
MCL 750.520d—criminal sexual conduct in the third degree
MCL 750.520e—criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree
MCL 750.520g—assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct
MCL 722.675(5)—disseminating sexually explicit material to a minor [---Counts III & IV ]( zero words of the statute , just a part of the ZERO law TITLE )
MCL 750.327a—sale of explosives to minors
MCL 750.157c—inducing minor to commit felony
.............
Part B
MCL 750.411h—stalking
MCL 750.411i—aggravated stalking
MCL 750.327—causing death with explosives in vehicle
MCL 750.328—causing death with explosives placed to destroy building
MCL 750.411a(2)—false report of explosives crime or threatening to commit such a crime
..............
2 Underlying offenses in Part B of Use Note 1 need not involve a minor. Use the bracketed phrase only where the underlying offense is found in Part A of Use Note 1. (The Bracketed Phrase is : " [ against a minor ]" )
THE FRAUD IS NOW FULLY EXPOSED AFTER 20 YEARS
[ Sidebar : Check YouTube concerning Oakland County Probate Court's HORRIFIC abuse of Elderly Citizens- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0P5SZh5LEg ]
COUNTS III & IV: NO JURY INSTRUCTIONS [as 'charged'] EXIST SINCE IT CANNOT BE LEGALLY PROSECUTED EVER BY ANY COURT --- That is why ZERO words from the Statute MCL 722.675 are charged, and also why these Frauds REFUSED TO SENTENCE OR RESENTENCE to the Plea " Bargain " Count III,,,instead they Sentenced AND resentenced to DISMISSED COUNT I...
Incredible Acts of Deception & Injustices
MCL722.675 ( partial title only ) & MCL 750.145d2c [ identical Counts 3 & 4 ] = 1999 Public Act 33 and is not permitted to be prosecuted in the least .
M Crim JI 35.10 Use of a Computer to Commit Specified Crimes
(1) The defendant is charged with using a computer to ['VIOLATE' Zero words of MCL 722.675] the offense of [ONLINE Commercial gain through sales of adult materials }1 [against a minor].2 To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant used [the Internet] to communicate with any person.
(3) Second, that the communication was done for the purpose of [committing zero words of mcl 722.675 for commercial gain ] the offense of [IN PERSON commercial gain].
[Use the following paragraph only if the underlying offense appears in Part A of the underlying offense list in Use Note 1.]
(4) Third, that the [no victim exists for the non-crime] was a minor or the defendant believed [he / she] was a minor. ( irrelevant since no victim , minor or not, exists )
(5) The elements of [commercial gain with adult materials] are [commercial gain selling adult materials]. It does not matter whether the defendant or anyone else has been convicted of [commercial gain selling adult materials IN PERSON].
Use Note 1 .( required minor )
PERVERSIONS OF MICHIGAN LAW-AS-LEGISLATED
RENDER EVERY CONVICTION VOID FOR FRAUD
ALL surveillance by any " Special Computer Task Force" is NOT AUTHORIZED
Perverted -twisted - partial law prosecutions that are 100% FRAUD
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, 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 - then in-person knows the minor is a minor
- It does NOT STATE: " Whether or not the victim or intended victim is a minor "
(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.
A. WHAT UNDERLYING CRIME ?
How does 14% of mcl 750.145c2 validly activate this computer prohibition statute ? Is that an U/L "Crime" ?
How does 0% of mcl 722.675 [ a title is NOT part of the law ] validly activate the computer statute ? ZERO CRIME CHARGED yet OFF TO PRISON FOR 1,000s of YEARS of Illegal Sentences while the State AG and County Judges are in Contempt of Fed Court and raking in Taxpayer Money by Extortion via Fraud
OBVIOUS LEGISLATIVE INTENT via OBVIOUS Legislation:
The 11 Crimes requiring a real victim listed in d1a:
(Public Act 45 of 2002).... eliminate requirement of knowledge of age of child for certain other sex-related crimes. " 145a et seq
1. How do you accost A CHILD in person online ? 145a
( Remember HB 5449 ---145a et seq --- CHILD REQ'd)
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of accosting a child for an immoral purpose.
(4) Second, that the defendant believed [name complainant] was less than 16 years old. It does not matter if [name complainant] was older as long as the prosecutor proves that the defendant believed [name complainant] was less than 16 years old. Still a child from paragraph (1) required --- either 16 or 17. Paragraphs (5) or (6) require IN PERSON activity ---- nothing to do with online or about 500,000 porn actors are guilty too
THE ACTUAL STATUTE: [link]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yf4m2zwakwllidr1epgahgft))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-145a
In-Person offense with a child after online introduction: believe online THE child is A child, THEN KNOW IT IN-PERSON ( if you add the internet prohibition statute 750.145d2d )
OR :
Believe In-Person an individual is under 16 ..... IN PERSON IS REQUIRED
Uncle Dirtbag: " But her ID said she is 19"
Aunt Sleazy : " But his ID says he is 18 " = PRISON TIME
2. How do you commit/attempt child sexually abusive activity online? -145c2 " a child / the child / knowledge IS required of status of child. SEE JURY INSTRUCTIONS:
The Perjuring Plaintiffs charged 14% of the Statute to PROSECUTE FAKE LAW / FAKE CRIME
Online : believing the child is a child
In Person: Knowing The child is A child
EITHER WAY A CHILD IS STILL REQUIRED
3. 157c -convince some kid 17 or younger online to commit a crime then meet IN-PERSON to commit or attempt to commit that crime
" Hey BillyJoeBob, bring your bat for mailbox fun"
" Ok Uncle ScumPuppy, you drive, I'll practice my swing. "
4. How do you kidnap someone online ? 349 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_19%2FM_Crim_JI_19_1_Kidnapping.htm
5. How do you haul a kid off online ? 350
6.-7.-8.-9. :How do you commit 1st,2nd,3rd or 4th degree CSC online ? 520a-d
10. HOW DO YOU ASSAULT SOMEONE ONLINE WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT CSC ? 350g
11. 1999 Public Act 33 Selling adult stuff to kids ONLINE
It only applied to commercial activity --- 1999 Public Act 33 (see Athenaco v Cox )
IT IS A CRIME BY THE COURT OFFICIALS TO CHARGE THIS ENJOINED ACT -- They are in CONTEMPT of FEDERAL COURTS
".... 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).
Oakland County ran this SCAM for decades
Conspiring with the former State AGs
HOW MENTALLY SICK IS THAT ???
(Current AG is so far USELESS to Remedy the Crimes )
1000s of Years of Prison Sentences at TAXPAYERS EXPENSE over Two Decades = (Billions ?) Extorted
THE AG HAS NO INTERNAL AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN PROSECUTORS THINK THEY ARE LEGISLATORS
as they re-write / alter / butcher / tamper the Laws for decades:
ABUSE OF PROCESS
Kidnapping: mcl750.349(a)(e), Title18USC ss 1200
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
DEFAMATION-UNLAWFUL SEARCHES
UNAUTHORIZED SEIZURES
ILLEGAL STRIP SEARCHES x 1000s
=======================================================
THE 2007 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAD NO QUALMS ABOUT SEVERELY TAMPERING COMPUTER EVIDENCE TO COERCE PLEA "BARGAIN" CONVICTIONS. CURRENT AG DOES NOTHING to CORRECT