ALL CHARGES / CONVICTIONS IN MICHIGAN'S INTERNET

COMPUTER SEX STINGS ARE VOID FOR FRAUD

"DEFENSE" ATTORNEYS "forgot" to tell their victim-client this:

The  charges improperly lack this part of mcl750.145C2 :

 ""... if that person knows that the child is a child"

  THERE MUST BE A CHILD VICTIM 

NO VICTIM  =  NO CRIME as per Michigan Laws

Plus THE OFFENDER MUST KNOW THEY ARE UNDER 18

PRETENDING TO BE UNDERAGE TO ENTRAP IS UNAUTHORIZED

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAVE SPOKEN

THRU THEIR ELECTED LEGISLATORS

1000's of Lives / Families are forever ruined

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

 

From a Motion for Relief of VOID Judgment:

Counts 3 & 4 : ZERO STATUTORY WORDING CHARGED or NOTICED

 

                         From mcl 722.675 - How does that qualify as a charge

 

                         or validly activate mcl750.145d2c in d1a’s list ?

 

Mcl750.145d1a’s list of 11 in-person crimes has 1978 Public Act 33 as one of 

 

them so when this Act touches the Internet statutes it is 1999 Public Act 33( Illegal to charge - the prosecution is in contempt of Fed Court Order ) .

 

Therefore no statutory wording is charged and Count 3 was not orally sentenced

 

nor resentenced to. The fraud-based plea was to Count 2 and Count 3 .

 

Defense counsel was raking in huge fees while pretending to defend.  

 

Where is the in-person commercial activity ? mcl722.675(5) and mcl 752.362(2)

 

Counts 1 & 2 :  22 words/numbers from mcl750.145c2 which in 2007 had 

             

                          152 words / numbers . How does 14% of a statute qualify

 

                           as a valid charge or valid notice ? How does that validly

 

                          activate mcl 750.145d1a’s list or activate mcl750.145d2f ?

 

Where is the required child , the knowledge of their status as the child and

 

where is the legislatively mandated commercial activity ?

 

For most of 2021 redress of grievances has been impossible due to e-file . It has been beyond frustrating to get access to Lady Justice.  COURT RULES OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN MICHIGAN

CONCLUSION : ALL JUDGMENTS ARE VOID

ALL ORDERS WORTHLESS DUE TO FRAUD ON THE COURT

 

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

              A similar example - except no prison & worldwide defamation for 25 years :

Imagine being ticketed for doing 45 in a 5 mph zone because the 4 was whited out  --- Fraud is the outcome

You appeal of course -

Michigan Courts say : " HARMLESS ERROR go pound sand "

THE POWER TO ARREST WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY = UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS

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

MCR ( Michigan Court Rules ) 6.101

Rule 6.101 Complaint

(A) Definition and Form. A complaint is a written accusation that a named or described person has committed a specified criminal offense. The complaint must include the substance of the accusation 

8. FROM COLE v ARKANSAS 333 U.S. 196:

     No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 25768 S.Ct. 499, and cases there cited.

     If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of § 1, it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain that they were not tried for or found guilty of it.

     It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353362, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278.

      Thus any PLEA  is  Involuntary - Unintelligent - Unknowing and VOID

      Jury Instructions for the inapplicable/ Improper Charge :

 

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. [ No Child existed in 100s or 1000s of 'cases']

(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.

                       [  100s or 1000s of unauthorized 'cases'  took place the last 20 years ]

This could assist the 1000s of victims :https://void-judgments.com/brief-petition-to-vacate.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More unconstitutional acts  wherein 6 title words 'charged' 

This in-person Commercial Activity Law was used against people on Yahoo Chat - this changes the charges from 1978 Public Act 33 to 1999 Public Act 33 because the Internet is used ---THIS MANIFESTS CONTEMPT OF FEDERAL COURT ORDER BY THE PROSECUTION . See Cyberspace, Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 55 F. Supp. 2d 737 (E.D. Mich. 1999)

    A title has zero force of law so the statutory wording is erased --- very deceptive and results in fake charges but real prison and UNLAWFUL sex offender registry orders

    mcl 722.675 Disseminating sexually explicit matter to minor.... " 

then illegally added the unauthorized wording below: ( how does a partial title activate d1a ? )

 

  mcl750.145d1a :

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

            You Must believe online that " the child is a child " as per Mich laws - It does NOT STATE: "  Whether or not the victim or intended victim is a minor "

btw:

mcl 752.362 Definition of disseminate :

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

    Legally it pertains to any of 11 in-person crimes listed in mcl750.145d1a , so:

FOR A VALID CASE:

After an in-person crime is committed it is discovered the minor victim met the offender online 

The 11 in-person crimes listed in MCL750.145d1a ( 1931 Public Act 328 ) :

 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, 

 

HOW ARE THESE IN-PERSON CRIMES POSSIBLE TO VIOLATE ONLINE?

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

Michigan's prosecutions only charged tiny fractions of statutes and are bereft of subject matter jurisdiction

              see Mich Laws, Jury Instructions & 2002 Public Act 45

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

JURY INSTRUCTIONS  :

 

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 ]

No Jury Instructions exist for  violating MCL722.675 1978 PA 33 WHILE ONLINE ONLY  since it then is illegally transformed into 1999 PA 33 and becomes Contempt of Fed Court when charged

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

 

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

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

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

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

{ how do 37 words out of approximately 877 words in 4 Counts authorize using d1a ? }

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

Heading 2

Computer Prohibition Laws: MCL 750.145d :

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

(c) If the underlying crime ( is ZERO words a 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 22 of 152 words a 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).

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).

Michigan AG Dana Nessel Nov 23rd, 2020 : "... intentionally making a false claim of criminal activity to law enforcement is itself a crime."

ALL JUDGMENTS & ORDERS ARE VOID

ALL LEVELS OF MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE AWARE OF THESE FACTS

MICHIGAN MEDIA BURIES IT

MICH COURTS ARE VERY AWARE OF THESE LAWS / JURY INSTRUCTIONS/ MCR

EXAMPLE OF A MOTION : a partial one

MOTION TO IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE UNLAWFUL

 

 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION and ‘SUA SPONTE’ CONSIDERATION OF 

 

ADDITIONAL ENTITLED RELIEF

 

  1. There exists no lawful reason to be on the sex offender registry

 

   2. The fraud-based plea “bargain” contract did not include registration

 

   3. Under penalty of perjury defendant swears he was kidnapped, defamed

     assaulted and extorted 1000's in the malicious prosecution and ABUSE OF PROCESS

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-1-

BRIEF IN SUPPORT 

 

 1.    The plea bargain did not include sex offender registration - that was an 

 

un-agreed  to added Term & Condition in the last minute or two of sentencing .

 

  2.   This defendant  was tricked into a plea bargain as all 4 counts fail to state a valid 

 

claim .  Count I, mcl 750.145c2 only notices 22 of 152 words/numbers and is invalid and

 

unconstitutional for prosecution on its face. Two essential elements were tampered out 

 

of the count: the legislative requirement of a child and knowledge by an offender of age

 

of  the child. ( More elements may be involved that are not perceived ).

 

3. Count II: 5 penalty words from mcl 750.145d2f were noticed and “....or is believed 

 

by that person to be a minor. “  from a list of crimes named in mcl 750.145d1a ,was 

 

intentionally misapplied to Count I - how do 22 words from Count I validly activate the 

 

computer/internet prohibition statute ? Additionally the Ass’t AG 

 

 intentionally perjured venue to Oakland County in Counts 2,3,4.

 

4. Counts III / IV:  mcl722.675 ( a few words of the TITLE ONLY were noticed )

 

combined with mcl 750.145d2c . 


 

THE COMPLETE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WAS NOT WAIVED

 

ALL JUDGMENTS ARE VOID AND THEREBY FATAL TO VALID CONVICTIONS

.

-2-

d1a lists 1978 Public Act 33, mcl 722.675 - no viable Internet even existed then.

 

5.  The substance of the allegations DO NOT CHARGE A CRIME 

 

Mich Court Rule 6.101 Complaint

(A) Definition and Form. A complaint is a written accusation that a named or described person has committed a specified criminal offense. The complaint must include the substance of the accusation . The prosecutors violate  Court rules . 

  6.   FROM COLE v ARKANSAS 333 U.S. 196:

     No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, and cases there cited.

     If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of § 1, it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain that they were not tried for or found guilty of it.

     It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 362, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278.

 

 7.  The crimes listed in mcl 750.145d1a are all in-person only and the Internet

 

 prohibitions were added for prosecution AFTER an in-person crime was committed 

 

subsequent to the actors' introduction earlier online.

 

8. Jury instructions testify to this fact as do the laws-as written and 2002 Public Act 45

 

 cements the legal requirement of the child / minor.  : 

Crimes; prostitution; age limit restricting prosecution for certain prostitution violations; revise, and eliminate requirement of knowledge of age of child for certain other sex-related crimes. Amends secs. 145a, 145b & 448 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.145a et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4325'01 SB 0180'01 SB 1029'02

Last Action: 03/14/2002 - assigned PA 0045'02

-3-


 

   9.   Article I , Section I of the United States Constitution only allows the legislative

 

branch to write or alter laws - it is not in the purview of the Executive branch - these 

 

actions by the State Attorney General Office were unauthorized and resulted in an

 

absolute lack of subject matter jurisdiction being vested in this honorable court . 

 

10.  Chopped up laws tossed in a blender and dumped on the court and innocent

 

 victims by an out of control prosecution conspiracy is unjust , unfair , bad-faith and

 

 illegal which resulted in void judgments ab initio . Due process was lacking.

 

11. The FRAUD-BASED PLEA was Involuntary - Unintelligent - Unknowing and VOID

 

12.  22 of 152 Words in mcl 750.145c2 is not registerable , plus it was DISMISSED

 

13.  22 of 152 words did not activate a computer crime law and is not registerable plus 

 

the underlying partial charge was DISMISSED erasing any computer crime charge.

 

14.  ZERO words of mcl 722.675’s statutory wording is not registerable and does not

 

validly activate mcl 750.145d1a computer crimes statute. 1978 Public Act 33 is in-person 

 

commercial activity, if it is combined with mcl 722.675 it becomes enjoined 1999 PA 33.

 

There was no in-person or online commercial activity - the prosecution filed fraud on the 

 

court  thereby intentionally deceiving the court and the defendant . 

 

The 11 crimes listed in MCL750.145d1a ( 1931 Public Act 328 ) :

 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,

HOW ARE THESE IN-PERSON CRIMES POSSIBLE TO VIOLATE ONLINE?

-4-

 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS  : ( kept hidden from this defendant  )

 

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 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

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

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.

M Crim JI 20.37 (formerly CJI2d 20.37) was adopted by the committee in October, 2004, to set forth the elements of MCL 750.145d as last amended by 2000 PA 185, effective September 18, 2000.

 

-5-

 

VOID JUDGMENTS AND WORTHLESS PROCEEDINGS

 

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)
 

-6
 

REQUEST FOR ENTITLED RELIEF:


 

     For the above reasons immediate termination of unlawful 

registration must be ordered 

 

Sua sponte relief in other aspects of this case is warranted but I can not name them as

 

Swain will be resurrected again by a staff attorney and everything dismissed. 

 

Sex offender registration is an absolute nightmare unending punishment and mental 

 

oppression added to the cruel and unlawful  prosecution.


 

Dated : November      2021