The Charges created by Michigan court officials in online Sex " Crimes" Stings

       are BOGUS without the  MINOR VICTIM that the Legislature Demands:

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

     the Internet ( 1931 PA 329 ) -- 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


The court officials take 11 in-person crimes listed in mcl750.145d1a and twist their application to online-only or online combined with travelling to an agreed to location as all that is needed for a valid prosecution -

1000s or 10,000s of Years in Prison Sentences via Fraud results in Extorting the Taxpayers

1000s are unlawfully on the Sex Offender Registry due to this intentional FRAUD





1. The Laws as-written - ( by Michigan legislature - not as altered by court officers )

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

3. 2002 Public Act 45   ( a child is definitely required )

4. Legislative Intent concerning 11 crimes listed in mcl750.145d1a (The prosecutor        WILL NOT VALIDLY CHARGE ANY OF THESE in a sting )

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.

         ( They tamper laws/juries/evidence/witnesses/media-public )


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 ]


Child Sexually Abusive Activity Jury Instructions:

No Jury Instructions exist for Using a Computer / Internet to violate MCL722.675 because the Fed Courts banned that but

Mike Cox , Kelly Carter and numerous County Judges and Assistant AGs  are in contempt of that Federal Court Order concerning 1999 Public  Act 33.

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


Since no minors existed in 1000's of FAKE CASES

all related court actions are BOGUS & fraudulent 

The Prosecutors illegally Manipulate the Police to

Act as Instrument 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 - [ since 1999 PA 33 is banned from prosecution - meaning IT CANNOT BE LEGALLY PROSECUTED DUE TO ONLINE ACTIVITY BY ANYBODY ON THE PLANET]  in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor.

[ When 1978 PA 33 is added to Internet use statutues it becomes the unconstitutional 1999 PA 33 and the Court officers are in contempt of the Federal Court Order permanently enjoining ANY provision of that Act ]

 To Properly charge 1978 PA 33 with Internet statutes 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.--- exhibiting online never qualifies as an offense committed, if it were then 12 billion pages and their website owners must be prosecuted NOW !


While online   believes  the REQUIRED minor IS a minor - 

  - It does NOT STATE: "  Whether or not the victim or intended victim is a minor " Again - see Jury Instructions that demand " a minor" or " the child " and in-person knowledge thereof -

      Is it Constitutional for a perjuring prosecutor to 'charge' 37 words from 4 Statutes


that have 877 words and act like it is valid ? ( MCLs: 750.145c2 with 750.145d2f,


750.145d2c with 722.675 ( enjoined ) / day online.

RESULT: kidnappings  mcl 750.349(a)(e) & Titlel 18 USC 1201


also: defamed / extorted victims & taxpayers / ruined lives



 "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 329

      These Law Perverts in the Judicial Branch unlawfully ERASED that legal ground in UNAUTHORIZED  PROSECUTIONS




Short Version Proofs:

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

It is an unlawful erasure of the required victim AND knowing they are The Child repeatedly stated in the real law. 

Non-Stop 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: 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 -

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

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


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--every prosecution adding the Internet places themselves in Contempt of Federal Court Order re: 1999 Public Act 33


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



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

Unclean hands AND Fraud on the court:

The following two equitable maxims underlie the doctrine: (1) he who seeks equity must do equity; and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. See, e.g., 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity §§119, 126 (1996)

The unclean hands doctrine, flexible in application, permits a court to exercise broad discretion to deny relief to a litigant who has acted in an unconscionable way that “has immediate and necessary relation to the matter that he seeks in respect of the matter in litigation.” Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245 (1933); accord Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. at 814–15.

As the First Circuit stated in Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989): “Because corrupt intent knows no stylistic boundaries, fraud on the court can take many forms.” Some of the more creative or interesting examples of conduct that triggered the unclean hands and fraud on the court doctrines are the following:



Petition example


Heading 2




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.



          ONLINE SURVEILLANCE by Michigan Officials

COUNTs II, III: Using a Computer to log onto the Internet and violate NO VALID LAW

                     MCL 750.145d2c & d2f

[ Sidebar : Check YouTube concerning Oakland County Probate Court's HORRIFIC abuse of Elderly Citizens- 

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.




How does 14% of mcl 750.145c2 validly activate this computer prohibition statute ? Is that an underlying "Crime" ?

How does  0% of mcl 722.675 [ a title is NOT part of the law ] validly activate the computer statute ? 

".... 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--- inapplicable to Yahoo Adults Only Chat of 2007

MCL 752.362 Definitions; C to O.


Sec. 2.


  (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.

Michigan's One Court of justice fails to notice that 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group ( One Court of Justice and AG Office and Cops ) covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem.

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


While Crossing State Lines Electronically 100s of Michigan's 

Court Officials intentionally violated this for the last 20 years


Kidnapping / Defamation / Extortion by Prosecutors,  Judges & Counties  is illegal Even in Michigan

Names :  Attorney General Mike Cox, Kelly Carter, Anica Letica , Robert Peplinski, Eric Restuccia, Jessica LePine and many others in the Attorneys General office 

Judges : Edward Sosnick, James M. Alexander, Robert Bondy , Judith Holtz and dozens more who

participated directly in crimes via intentional fraud or are currently trying to cover them up to avoid lawsuits 


and prison --- including all involved Michigan's One Court of " Justice " officials who deny relief and




 A Huge ( Chris Hanson type ) Scam for Massive State Gov't Profits

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."



© 2023 by Name of Site. Proudly created with