ALL CHARGES IN MICHIGAN'S INTERNET
COMPUTER SEX STINGS ARE VOID FOR FRAUD
ALL JUDGMENTS ARE VOID
The perjuring prosecutors DELETE this section of the law to
TRICK 100's into unconscionable Plea "Bargains" and PRISON :
" . . . if that person knows, has reason to know, or should reasonably be expected to know that the child is a child or that the child sexually abusive material includes a child or that the depiction constituting the child sexually abusive material appears to include a child, or that person has not taken reasonable precautions to determine the age of the child. "
( Prosecutors & Judges RE-WRITE LAWS --- THEN : they cross State lines electronically to imprison 100's with NO LEGAL REASON and hold their victims for over $100,000 while placing them into involuntary servitude --- See USC Title 18 ss 1201, mcl750.349 (a)(e) )--- )
More unconstitutional acts with mcl 722.675 wherein only a partial title 'charged'
[ a title has zero force of law ]
then illegally added the unauthorized wording below:
[ btw: they tamper juries - witnesses - computer data - police - and obviously all these laws ]
=====================================================================================
Invalid activation of mcl750.145d1a :
"... in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor. "
( 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 " )
Legally it pertains to any of 11 in-person crimes listed in mcl750.145d1a , so:
After an in-person crime is committed it is discovered the minor victim met the offender online . That is a valid case, but:
The Crimes perpetrated by Michigan officials against hundreds are now EXPOSED.
[see Mich Laws, Jury Instructions & 2002 Public Act 45 ]
===============================================================
The 11 crimes listed in MCL750.145d1a have been around long before
the Internet ( 1931 Public Act 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
HOW ARE THESE IN-PERSON CRIMES POSSIBLE TO VIOLATE ONLINE?
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 crimes in an UNLAWFUL sting operation
5. United States Constitution's Confrontation Clause demands an actual victim.
6.The Law of Lenity requires criminal statutes to be read in the least oppressive manner to the defendant.
7. CORRUPT Michigan prosecutors only charge tiny fractions of statutes in the stings and are bereft of subject matter jurisdiction
=====================================================
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 ]
The Real Wording & Jury Instructions of the Real Laws :
Computer Jury Instructions: 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
Jury Instructions for Child Sexually Abusive Activity:
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
==========================================================
EXAMPLES:
Count I: 22 words of mcl750.145c2 were 'charged' out of 152 words [ 2006 wording ]
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: The CORRUPT CON ARTIST CONSPIRATORS "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
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-
{ how do 37 words out of 877 words in the true laws authorize using d1a ? }
=============================================================================
If you wish to ask the kidnappers to help you out : one possibility besides going to the FBI or US Marshal :
Petition to vacate the garbage convictions example https://void-judgments.com/brief-petition-to-vacate.html
____________________________________________________________________________________
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 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
MCL 752.362 :
(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).
People v Thousand rulings / opinions are 100% irrelevant
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."
From The Gateway Pundit comment section July 1st 2021 :
" Let's look at MSNBC. They created a show called "To Catch a Predator" with Chris Hanson.
They used felons to set up people. They falsified evidence. They lied. They got a man killed. The producer of the show had to sue MSNBC to make them stop. Her name was Marsha Bartel. She sued for $100,000,000. That is why the show is off the air. The group they used --- Perverted Justice is no longer active because most of their leaders are now felons or on the run.
A friend of mine has written a book about this. What should scare you? The woman who started all of this is now the VP of Security for Twitter (Del Harvey). Now you know why Twitter is so corrupt and biased.
That is how "ethical" these people are. We are dealing with scum. "
Page___ of ____
p. Heck v Humphrey does not apply to this situation because:
-
The charges and convictions intentionally fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted to trick John Doe into a fraud-based plea contract.
-
The convictions are not reflective of criminal convictions.
-
The State and County officials committed fraud on the court ab initio.
-
All judgments are VOID ab initio.