1 PAUL HOWARD DEERING

Address for Service of Process:

2 Posta Restante
GPO
3 Oliver Plunkett Street
Cork, Co. Cork
4 Ireland
5 (353) 87 960 2101
6

8 MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

9

10

11 PAUL HOWARD DEERING, CASE No.:

12 Petitioner/Defendant,
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
13 v. CORPUS;

14 JUDGE RUDY NICHOLS; and, THE PEOPLE &

15 OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; DISPOSITION; PROCEEDINGS; &

DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DEERING
16 Respondents/Plaintiff. IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

17 . CIRCUIT CT CASE No.: 2005-206063-FH

APPELLATE CT CASE No.: 2 9 3 6 0 7
18

19 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY OF

20 INTEREST IN THIS ACTION:
21 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED THAT PAUL H. DEERING, Sues out this Petition for
22 a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Michigan Supreme Court, 925 West Ottawa Street, Lansing,
23 Michigan 48913; on the Grounds stated below.
24

25

26

27

28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

1
 1 I - JURISDICTION & VENUE
2 1. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION pursuant to MCL § 600.4301 et seq.; MSA
3 27A.4301 et seq., MCR §§ 3.302 through 3.305 as the causes for this action arises under the
4 Michigan and United States Constitutions and laws.
5 2. This Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is to secure release from the restraints
6 on Petitioner’s liberty, which include but are not limited to: Petitioner is unable to return to
7 California to his son without being falsely arrested, unable to return to Michigan without being
8 falsely arrested, unable to exercise his rights under the Second Amendment to Keep and Bear
9 Arms, and limitations on employment.
10 3. The restraints on Petitioner’s Liberty are caused by Judge Rudy J. Nichols of the
11 Oakland County Circuit Court (OCCC) who knowingly and willfully is exercising the judicial
12 power of the State of Michigan outside of its jurisdiction; he knowingly Entered a Conviction
13 against this Petitioner/Defendant, a California resident, for allegedly committing acts or failures
14 to act against Minnesota residents. See Recorder's Court Bar Ass'n v Wayne Circuit Court
15 (1993) 443 Mich 110, 503 NW2d 885).
16 4. Intervention by the Michigan Supreme Court is appropriate as there has been a
17 showing of Bad Faith, Harassment, and Unusual Circumstances to the end that the OCCC is
18 incapable of protecting Petitioner’s constitutional rights, and in fact is willfully violating them,
19 such that Equitable Relief is Warranted.
20 5. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Investigation with the Judicial Tenure
21 Commission against Rudy J. Nichols.
22 6. This Petition is supported by the OCCC records, the Exhibits provided, and the
23 Sworn Declaration in Support by Paul H. Deering incorporated herein by reference.
24 7. AS TO VENUE; The Michigan Supreme Court is proper Venue as the matter to be
25 Adjudicated originates with the OCCC, Pontiac, Michigan, and the Second District Court of
26 Appeals has Denied the Petition, no Opinion provided.
27

28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

2
 1 II – BRIEF DISPOSITION OF THE CASE
2 8. The factual allegations that support these claims are set forth in Petitioner's
3 Disposition; Proceedings, & Declaration in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
4 are incorporated herein by reference.
5 III – GROUNDS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT
6 A – VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
7 9. Michigan does not have Jurisdiction to prosecute a California resident for
8 allegedly acting or failing to act against Minnesota residents.
9 10. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “In all
10 criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
11 impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
12 district shall have been previously ascertained by law, . . . . (emphasis added).”
13 11. The locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the
14 location of the act or acts constituting it. United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 703.
15 12. Courts are responsible to take note of the limits of their own jurisdiction even
16 where the question is not raised by the pleadings or by counsel. People v. McKinnon, 139
17 Mich.App 362.
18 13. Jurisdiction comes from the law, and cannot be conferred by consent in criminal
19 cases. People v. Meloche, 186 Mich. 536. In criminal prosecutions in which The People seek to
20 subject the defendant to punishment, it is the duty of the courts to see that the constitutional
21 rights of the defendant are not violated, however negligent the defendant may be in raising the
22 objection. Hill v. People, 16 Mich 351.
23 14. Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority, and a court may,
24 and should, on its own motion, though the question is not raised by the pleadings or by counsel,
25 recognize its lack of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying proceedings, dismissing the
26 action, or otherwise disposing thereof, at any stage of the proceeding. Bradley v. Board of State
27 Canvassers, 154 Mich 274; J.F. Hartz Co. v. Lukaszcewski, 200 Mich 230; Bolton v. Cummings,
28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

3
 1 200 Mich 234; Ideal Furnace Co. v. International Molders' Union of North America, 204 Mich
2 311; Warner v. Noble, 286 Mich 654.
3 15. The general rule is that jurisdiction is proper only over offenses that are
4 committed within a court’s territorial jurisdiction. The authority to exercise jurisdiction over acts
5 that occur outside the state’s physical borders developed as an exception to the rule. That
6 exception, however, is limited to those acts that are intended to have, and that actually do have, a
7 detrimental effect within the State. People v. Blume, 443 Mich. 476, 505 N.W2d 843.
8 16. The factual allegations & Exhibits that support that no crime was intended to or in
9 fact did occur in the State of Michigan are set forth in Petitioner's Disposition; Proceedings; &
10 Declaration in Support Thereof and are incorporated herein by reference.
11 17. As supported by Petitioner’s Declaration the State of Michigan lacks Jurisdiction
12 as none of the parties to the alleged Support Order have lived in the State of Michigan from as
13 early as 1995. Petitioner left the state of Michigan on September 25, 1995. Public records show
14 Petitioner’s former wife and his children have been residing in Rushford, Minnesota no later than
15 September 2002 / January 2003 when the children transferred to Rushford-Peterson high school,
16 possibly earlier. Therefore, no crime was committed in the State between June 30, 2003 to June
17 28, 2005, as alleged in the Warrant & Conviction.
18 B – VOID FOR LACK OF EFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION
19 18. The State of Michigan is responsible to provide effective legal representation to
20 indigent Defendants in criminal prosecutions, and Petitioner, indigent at the time of the OCCC
21 criminal prosecution needed and requested the appointment of counsel to provide effective legal
22 representation – counsel hand selected by the judge was absolutely ineffectual.
23 19. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that “In all
24 criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for
25 his defense.” Art. I, § 20 of the Michigan Constitution states in pertinent part: “In every criminal
26 prosecution, the accused shall have the right . . . . to . . . the assistance of counsel for his or her
27 defense; to have such reasonable assistance as may be necessary to perfect and prosecute an
28 appeal.”

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

4
 1 20. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the United States
2 Supreme Court held that the right to Assistance of Counsel also applies through the Sixth and
3 Fourteenth Amendment to those who have been charged with criminal wrongdoing by the state
4 and are unable to afford private counsel.
5 21. The right to assistance of counsel is the right to effective assistance of competent
6 counsel. The United States Supreme Court has frequently made this point unambiguous,
7 “inadequate assistance does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel made applicable to
8 the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446, US 335, 344 (1980); see
9 also McMann v. Richardson, 397 US 759 (1970). Constitutionally adequate counsel is that which
10 is capable of putting the prosecution’s case to the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.
11 United States v. Cronic, 466 US 648, 656 (1984).
12 22. The factual allegations that support Petitioner was denied his right to effective
13 legal representation are contained in his Disposition; Proceedings; & Declaration of Paul H.
14 Deering in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and are incorporated herein by
15 reference.
16 23. Therefore: as Petitioner did not and will not receive anything remotely resembling
17 effective legal representation for any proceedings of the Oakland County Circuit Court, the
18 conviction is void for lack of effective legal representation.
19 C – VOID AS CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
20 24. Under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 16 of
21 the Michigan Constitution MCL § 750.165 is cruel and/or unusual punishment for its infliction
22 of 4 years imprisonment and/or a $2,000.00 fine or both for being late (even by one second) or
23 short (even by one penny) in making a child support payment.
24 25. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent part:
25 “. . . nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
26 26. In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), the Earl Warren Court held that “The
27 [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark
28 the progress of a maturing society.”

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

5
 1 27. In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court held that the
2 Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment applies to the States via
3 the Fourteenth Amendment.
4 28. In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), the U. S. Supreme Court held that
5 incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it were
6 disproportionate in duration with respect to the offense and the harshness of the penalty. In
7 measuring disproportionality the Court weighed: i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness
8 of the penalty; ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and, iii) the
9 sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
10 29. Though retreating somewhat in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), the
11 split Court still held to a “gross disproportionality principle.”
12 30. The Supreme Court again confirmed its approach to Cruel and Unusual as an
13 evolving measure of decency and what is cruelly disproportionate to the offense in Kennedy v.
14 Louisiana, 554 U.S. ______ (2008).
15 31. Article I, § 16 of the Michigan Constitution states in pertinent part: “. . . cruel or
16 unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. . .”
17 32. The dominant test controlling determination of cruel or unusual punishment under
18 both federal and state constitutional provisions is whether the punishment is in excess of any that
19 would be suitable to fit the crime. People v. Turner, 123 Mich App 600, 332 NW2d 626 (1983);
20 People v McCarty, 113 Mich App 464, 317 NW2d 659 (1982); People v. Tanksley, (1981) 103
21 Mich App 268, 303 NW2d 200; People v. Key, (1982) 121 Mich App 168, 328 NW2d 609.
22 33. Violation of Michigan’s Constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual
23 punishment is determined by a three-pronged analysis: the first focuses upon proportionality; the
24 second considers the evolving standards of decency; the third considers the prospect for
25 rehabilitation. People v. Walker, 146 Mich App 371, 380 NW2d 108 (1985).
26 34. The proportionality test applicable to a cruel or unusual punishment challenge to a
27 sentence is whether the punishment is in excess of any that would be suitable to fit the crime; the
28 decency test applicable to a cruel or unusual punishment challenge to a sentence looks to

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

6
 1 comparative law for guidelines in determining what penalties are widely regarded as proper for
2 the offense in question. People v. Stevens, 128 Mich App 354, 340 NW2d 852 (1983).
3 35. The proper procedure is to attack the constitutionality of the statute itself rather
4 than a sentence imposed within the limits of the statute where a party contends that a statute
5 provides for punishment thought to be cruel or unusual. People of Oak Park v Glantz, 124 Mich
6 App 531, 335 NW2d 80 (1983).
7 36. In examining the application of proportionality I Motion this Honorable Court to
8 consider its Opinion in the case of The People of the State of Michigan v. Vito Monaco (474
9 Mich. 48; 710 N.W.2d 46; 2006 Mich. LEXIS 196), which held that each month is a separate
10 event, such that if the Defendant has been late by even one second or short by even one penny of
11 the support order, he may be prosecuted under MCL § 750.165.
12 37. The Michigan Supreme Court:
13 An individual is guilty of felony nonsupport under MCL § 750.165(1) if the
14 individual "does not pay the support in the amount or at the time stated in the
15 order . . . ." The word "or," when read in context ("does not pay"), indicates that
16 the statute is violated if the individual neither pays the ordered amount nor pays
17 that amount when it is due. Thus, the plain language of MCL § 750.165(1)
18 indicates that the crime of felony nonsupport is complete when an individual fails
19 to pay support in the amount ordered at the time ordered. In other words, an
20 individual may be guilty of felony nonsupport if the individual either pays the full
21 ordered amount after the due date or pays an amount less than the ordered amount
22 before the due date and the due date passes without the individual making full
23 payment. Thus, anyone who fails to pay the full ordered amount at the time
24 ordered may be prosecuted under MCL § 750.165(1) even if that individual later
25 becomes current on the obligation. . . . a person is subject to conviction and
26 punishment each time the statute is violated . . .” The People v. Monaco (emphasis
27 added).
28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

7
 1 38. Per the this Honorable Court being one penny short, or one second late, regardless
2 of intent, is a felony punishable by up to 4 years imprisonment and/or a $2,000.00 fine per each
3 incident. Twelve months of payments either one second late or one penny short results in
4 criminal liability with up to 48 years in jail (12 shortages x 4 years); even if at the end of the year
5 the Obligor/Defendant has paid his $0.12 arrearage on a private debt.
6 39. A temporary lay-off, a check lost in the mail, a bounced deposit that results in a
7 nonpayment for insufficient funds, an internet interruption that prevents a money transfer going
8 through, or any other number of life’s unpredictable events can result in a criminal charge under
9 MCL § 750.165.
10 40. By comparative analysis Wisconsin’s felony nonsupport statute requires an
11 intentional failure to pay any support for at least 120 days. See Wis. Stats. § 948.22 et seq.; State
12 of Wisconsin v. Oakley, 2001 WI 103; 245 Wis. 2d 447; 629 N.W.2d 200; 2001 Wisc. LEXIS
13 434. This, as opposed to MCL § 750.165’s one penny short, one second late 4 year felony.
14 41. By comparative analysis Indiana’s felony nonsupport statute § 35-46-1-5 et seq.
15 requires that “A person who knowingly or intentionally fails to provide support to the person’s
16 dependent child commits nonsupport of a child, a Class D felony [up to 3 years]. . .” and a class
17 C felony (up to 8 years) if the unpaid support amount that is due and owing is at least
18 $15,000.00. An inability to pay as well as providing direct support in the form of food, clothing,
19 shelter or medical care constitutes support as a defense. Therein, a support obligor could be
20 significantly behind in Court Ordered Support payments, and still be supporting his/her
21 child(ren). See Grimes v. State, 693 N.E.2d 1361, 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). This, as opposed to
22 MCL § 750.165’s one penny short, one second late 4 year felony.
23 42. By comparative analysis Ohio’s felony nonsupport statute, § 2919.21 et seq. is
24 similar to Indiana’s. In pertinent part; § 2919.21(A) “No person shall abandon, or fail to provide
25 adequate support . . . (B) No person shall abandon, or fail to provide support as established by a
26 court order, to another person whom, by court order or decree, the person is legally obligated to
27 support.” Under § (D) the inability to pay is an affirmative defense. Under § (G) (1) the first
28 offense is a first degree misdemeanor (6 months / $1,000.00). If the offender has a prior

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

8
 1 conviction or “has failed to provide support . . . for a total accumulated period of twenty-six
2 weeks out of one hundred four consecutive weeks . . . .” then it is a felony in the fifth degree (12
3 months / $2,500.00) or may be held to a felony of the fourth degree (18 months / $5,000.00)
4 under further violations of the Section. This, as opposed to MCL § 750.165’s one penny short,
5 one second late 4 year felony.
6 43. Upon cursory review of Illinois and the remaining 46 states, Michigan is the only
7 one penny short, one second late felony wherein the focus is on time and payment verses actual
8 support of one’s children. And, where there is no defense as to intent, ability to pay, or actual
9 support in the form of food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
10 44. To punish an individual for being one penny short or one second late with four (4)
11 years of imprisonment and/or a $2,000.00 fine for each event is cruelly disproportionate to the
12 alleged offense, and is so by any reasonable measure established by the Michigan & U.S.
13 Supreme Courts.
14 D – VOID AS DEBTOR’S PRISON
15 45. MCL § 750.165 is in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, & Fourteenth Amendments of
16 the United States Constitution and violates Art. I § 21 of the Michigan Constitution as a Debtor’s
17 Prison Scheme.
18 46. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent
19 part: “. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
20 of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
21 47. The United States Supreme Court has held that once a criminal defendant is
22 sentenced to probation for a crime, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment to revoke his probation
23 and sentence him to jail if he lacks the resources to pay it. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660,
24 667-668 (1983); See also Banks v. United States, 614 F.2d 95, 100 n.13 (6th Cir., 1980); and,
25 Gross v. State . . . 312 F2d. 1279 (US App Ct Illinois, 1963).
26 48. Numerous Courts have overturned debtor's prison schemes as unconstitutional.
27 The courts have held that the defendant's inability to pay precludes imprisonment for either civil
28 or criminal contempt. If the party does not have the money, it cannot be coerced – nor can it be

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

9
 1 extorted from third parties. This is true whether the party chose to frustrate the court Order or
2 whether the inability is unintentional. See: Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d at 892; Lynch v. Lynch, 342
3 MD. 509, 677 A.2d 584 (1996); Jones v. Hargrove, 516 So.2d 1354 (Miss. 1987); Wilborn v.
4 Wilborn, 258 So.2d 804 (Miss 1972); In re: Nichols, 749 So.2d 68 (Miss 1999); Ex parte Rojo,
5 925 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. 1996) (citing In re Dustman, 538 S.W.2d at 410); Going v. Going, 148
6 Ten. At 256, 256 S.W. 890 (1923); State ex rel. Alderson v. Gentry, 1990 WL 2976 (Tenn. Ct.
7 App 1990); Moss v. Moss, LLR No. 9609060.CA (September 25, 1996).
8 49. Art. I § 21 of the Michigan Constitution states: “No person shall be imprisoned
9 for debt arising out of or founded on contract, express or implied, except in cases of fraud or
10 breach of trust.”
11 50. The Michigan Supreme Court, using extraordinarily harsh terms, struck down a
12 statute because it permitted the jailing of a person for failure to fix his sidewalk even though he
13 was “so poor and indigent as to receive support from his charitable neighbors.” City of Port
14 Huron v. Jenkinson, 77 Mich. 414, 420 (1889). The Court held:
15 No legislative or municipal body has the power to impose the duty of performing
16 an act upon any person which it is impossible to perform, and then make his
17 nonperformance of such a duty a crime for which he may be punished by both
18 fine and imprisonment. . . . It is hardly necessary to say these two sections of the
19 statute are unconstitutional and void. . . . They are obnoxious to our constitution
20 and laws [and] are a disgrace to the legislation of the state. [Id. At 419-420].”
21 (Emphasis added).
22 51. In a parallel line of reasoning, the Court held that “If the court’s purpose is to
23 preserve its authority by punishing past misconduct through the imposition of an unconditional
24 and fixed sentence, the proceedings are criminal. If instead of punishing past misconduct, the
25 court seeks to compel future compliance through the imposition of a sanction of indefinite
26 duration terminable upon compliance or inability to comply, the proceedings are civil.” Williams
27 International Corp. v. Smith, 144 Mich App 257, 262-263, leave granted 425 Mich 852 (1986).
28 See also, Spalter v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 35 Mich App 156, 160-161 (1971). Regardless of

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

10
 1 whether labeled civil or criminal, if the sentencing is conditional, the defendant must have the
2 keys to his release.
3 52. In applying the Statute, MCL § 750.165(4) reads in pertinent part:
4 The court may suspend the sentence of an individual convicted under this section
5 if the individual files with the court a bond in the amount and with the sureties the
6 court requires. At a minimum, the bond must be conditioned on the individual's
7 compliance with the support order. If the court suspends a sentence under this
8 subsection and the individual does not comply with the support order or another
9 condition on the bond, the court may order the individual to appear and show
10 cause why the court should not impose the sentence and enforce the bond. After
11 the hearing, the court may enforce the bond or impose the sentence, or both, or
12 may permit the filing of a new bond and again suspend the sentence . . . .
13 53. Thereby, MCL § 750.165(4) provides for conditional sentencing which allows
14 those defendants, by whatever fate, in a financial position to pay the bond (a debt which is 25%
15 of their arrears) to retain their freedom, and those that cannot face incarceration and additional
16 sanctions.
17 54. MCL § 750.165 is a debtor’s prison scheme where one’s liberty is conditioned,
18 explicitly so, upon an act, and wherein the Defendants’ inability to meet the condition, i.e. pay
19 the alleged debt, costs them their freedom. For the enforcement of private debt Defendants are
20 incarcerated without the keys to their release.
21 E – VOID FOR EXCESSIVE BAIL
22 55. The Eighth Amendment to the United State Constitution provides that;
23 “Excessive bail shall not be required . . .”
24 56. Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Bail clause of the United States
25 Constitution apply to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment?
26 57. It is in violation of Art. I, §§ 15 & 16 of the Michigan Constitution to charge,
27 hold, prosecute, try, and/or convict Petitioner under MCL § 750.165 when this statute violates
28 our rights to Bail.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

11
 1 58. Art. I, §§ 15 & 16 of the Michigan Constitution states in pertinent part: “. . . All
2 persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. . . . §16: Excessive bail shall
3 not be required . . .”
4 59. Money bail is excessive if it is in an amount greater than reasonably necessary to
5 adequately assure that the accused will appear when his presence is required or to assure the
6 protection of the public. People v. Edmund, 81 Mich.App 743. The lawful considerations are: 1.
7 the seriousness of the offense; 2. the protection of the public; 3. the previous criminal record;
8 and, 4. the probability of the accused appearing at trial. The bail is to be a sum of money and
9 there is no statutory authority to impose any other conditions on release. People v. Williams, 196
10 Mich.App 404.
11 60. Under MCL § 750.165(3) there is no bail available, but rather a pledge of
12 payment of past debt in the form of a bond.
13 61. MCL § 750,165(3) reads in pertinent part:
14 Unless the individual deposits a cash bond of not less than $500.00 or 25% of the
15 arrearage, whichever is greater, upon arrest for a violation of this section, the
16 individual shall remain in custody until the arraignment. If the individual remains
17 in custody, the court shall address the amount of the cash bond at the arraignment
18 and at the preliminary examination and, except for good cause shown on the
19 record, shall order the bond to be continued at not less than $500.00 or 25% of the
20 arrearage, whichever is greater.
21 62. Herein bail is disallowed, rather a bond is required against the alleged arrearage
22 (debt), which is in Violation of the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
23 F – VOID AS VIOLATING DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION
24 63. The controlling question under this ground for Issuance of the Writ is; whether it
25 is fundamentally unfair to prosecute & maintain a conviction against Petitioner for an alleged
26 violation of MCL § 750.165 when from the very onset of the family law related case, from
27 whence the alleged Order for Support emanated, to the arrest and prosecution, Michigan laws are
28 implemented in Discriminatory fashion against males in the enforcement of stereotypes, the

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

12
 1 aggrandizement of state employee political careers, and the raking in of Title IV-D Federal
2 Block Grant Funds to the State.
3 64. Petitioner is male.
4 65. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent
5 part: “. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
6 of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Article 1,
7 § 17 of the Michigan Constitution states: “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to
8 be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of
9 law.”
10 66. The U.S. Supreme Court held that “[w]hen government action depriving a person
11 of life, liberty, or property survives substantive due process scrutiny, it must still be implemented
12 in a fair manner.” United States v Salerno, 481 US 739, 746; 107 S Ct 2095; 95 L Ed 697 (1987).
13 67. Only a few decades ago our nation was rampant with family law statutes that
14 explicitly expressed the then dominant position of our society that mothers were the natural sole
15 custodian, and that father’s had to be coerced into taking on their allotted singular role of
16 “provider.” Statutes, both State & Federal, were literally titled the “Dead Beat Dad” law(s).
17 68. Those statutes had to be struck down as unconstitutional relics of the past and
18 discriminatory.
19 69. The hearts and minds of humankind are not purified by the striking down of their
20 prejudices that have been institutionalized in statutes and procedures. As a prime example,
21 Brown v Board of Education was required nearly 90 years after the civil war settled the rights of
22 African Americans. Though we struck down the “Dead beat Dad” laws, the prejudices and
23 singular dimension stereotypes of “male provider” continue.
24 70. From observation, information & belief, mothers are still routinely awarded sole
25 custody of their children in contested cases at a rate exceeding 4:1; men are regularly denied
26 access to their children without a finding that they are unfit, unwilling, or unable to parent, while
27 this is not so for women (See In re Troxel, 530 U.S. 57); these very same men are brought before
28 our courts on show cause hearings and prosecuted under MCL § 750.165 at rates at or exceeding

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

13
 1 4:1 (based upon Michigan Dept. of Corrections statistics), and receive sentences averaging 1.4
2 times more than that of women so charged.
3 71. This discrimination is funded, and the State given an incentive, under Title IV-D
4 of the Social Security Act. Under this Act the states receive funding for the rate of support
5 orders, collection of current support, and the collection of arrears. The counties receive an
6 additional incentive from the State for the rate of paternity orders and cost effectiveness per case.
7 72. The monies that flow to the State under Title IV-D’s child support system can and
8 do exceed the expenditures in the majority of the states, thereby representing a profit for the state
9 in creating single parent family homes. Michigan’s excess inflow of Title IV-D funds resulted in
10 a profit of $34,000,000.00 in 1996, and $43,000,000.00 in 1998. A conservative estimate
11 would put the profit at $408,000,000.00 from 1996 to date.
12 73. The outstanding child support owed by fathers is not an indication that fathers are
13 unfit, unwilling, or unable to parent, but rather, a testament of the continued discrimination
14 against them and the violation of our children’s corresponding right to access to both parents for
15 a profit!
16 V - PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17 WHEREFORE, Petitions Prays this Honorable Court to:
18 1. Memorialize as Absolutely Void the Alleged Criminal Conviction as the State
19 Court Officer, Rudy Nichols, Proceeded without Establishing the Court’s Jurisdiction and
20 committed Fraud Upon the Court;
21 2. Memorialize as Absolutely Void the Alleged Criminal Conviction as Michigan
22 does not have Jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged criminal charges against a California resident for
23 acts or failures to act against Minnesota residents;
24 3. Memorialize the conviction as Void having been reached without effective legal
25 representation;
26 4. Strike down MCL § 750.165(1) as Unconstitutional for Violation of our Rights to
27 be Free from Cruel and/or Unusual Punishment;
28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14
 1 5. Strike down MCL § 750.165(4) as an Unconstitutional Debtor’s Prison Scheme,
2 and a disgrace to the legislation of the state;
3 6. Strike down MCL § 750.165(3) as Unconstitutional Excessive Bail;
4 7. Memorialize as Absolutely Void the Alleged Criminal Conviction for Violation of
5 Petitioner/Defendant’s Due Process Rights;
6 8. Grant Sanctions, joint and several, against Rudy J. Nichols, Attorney General
7 Michael Cox, Assistant Attorney General James Long, and Assistant Attorney General Mitch
8 Wood, as their Pleadings to date in numerous filings are nothing more than the improper use of
9 said Pleadings that are designed to hide the Lack of Jurisdiction of the Oakland County Circuit
10 Court, brought to deliberately harass Petitioner, and cause unnecessary delays;
11 9. Grant other such Relief the Court Deems Appropriate and/or Necessary for the
12 protection of Petitioner’s Rights under the United States & Michigan Constitutions.
13

14 Dated: this 6th day of October, 2009.

15 ____________________________
Paul H. Deering,
16
Petitioner/ Defendant
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

15
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF IRELAND )
)
3 COUNTY CORK )
4 I, PAUL HOWARD DEERING, am over the age of eighteen years and a party to this

5 action; my address for Service of Process is Posta Restante, GPO, Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork,

6 County Cork, Ireland.

7 On Tuesday, October 6, 2009, I did Serve the within PETITION FOR WRIT OF

8 HABEAS CORPUS, MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, & MOTION FOR

9 IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION on the interested parties in said action, by placing a true copy
10 thereof in preaddressed, prepaid envelopes, Priority Air Mail, from the General Post Office,
11 Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork, County Cork, Ireland, as follows:
12

13 MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

Michigan Hall of Justice
14 925 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913
15

16 JUDGE RUDY NICHOLS

Oakland County Circuit Court
17 1200 North Telegraph Road
Pontiac, MI 48341
18

19 MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

G. Mennen Williams Building
20 525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, MI 48909
21 Attn. Norman Donker, Assistant in Charge
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Ireland that the foregoing
23 is true and correct.
24 Executed on Tuesday, October 6, 2009, at Cork, Co. Cork, Ireland.
25

26

27 ___________________________
28 Paul Howard Deering

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

16