Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tod Houthoofd, Petitioner v. Les Parish, Warden

Supreme Court briefJan 22, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

JAN 2 2 2021

NO.

30-10^2

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TOD KEVIN HOUTHOOFD, in pro se

Petitioner,

vs.

LES PARISH, Warden,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT - DENYING REVIEW

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Tod Kevin. Houthoofd #596.112

Oalcs (Correctional Facility

1500 Qaberfae Hwy.

Manistee, MI 49660

231:723-8272

• "V

IGINAL

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does Petitioner's convictions violate the U.S. Constitution and prior decisions

of the U.S. Supreme Court? (See page 2)

Petitioner says;

Yes.

Respondent says: No.

PREFACE TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED

Petitioner was convicted in the Saginaw 10th Circuit Court on three separate

charges, all occurring at different dates and times, and counties.

Two of the charges, Intimidating a Witness and Solicitation to Murder, allegedly

occurred in other counties; and were investigated by those counties and the evidence

was found insufficient and no charges were brought by these county prosecutors. The

Michigan Attorney General's office also found the evidence insufficient to charge

Petitioner.

Some years later, the Solicitation and Intimidation cases were forum-shopped

by police officers into Saginaw County and this prosecutor's office charged Petitioner

with these two crimes, which were included in a retrial of false pretenses after the first

trial ended in a hung jury - 6-6 split.

In Michigan, the venue of the crime must be proven by the prosecution before

the trial court attains jurisdiction and failure by the prosecutor to prove venue leaves

the trial court want of jurisdiction.

Petitioner was denied due process of law as established by Michigan

Constitution, Court Rule, and Statute(s), and this has violated the United States

Constitution 4th,_5th, fith,.13th,.and 14th Amendments.

The Michigan Court of Appeals in Case No. 269505 on February 3,2009, vacated

the conviction for solicitation at p. 6 stating:

"Under the United States Constitution, criminal trials must take place

in the state and district where the crime was committed. U.S. Const. Art,

3, § 2, cl. 3! U.S. Const. Amend. 6."

This court did not make a decision on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction.

The Michigan Supreme Court then ruled in People vHouthoofd, 487 Mich 568

(2010) at p. 571, found venue was not proper in Saginaw County, but the error was

harmless because it was not a constitutional error.

This panel found that their own case law requiring the prosecution to prove

venue beyond a reasonable doubt, has been abrogated by statute at p. 592, which is

simply not true.

A new panel of Supreme Court judges in the case decision of People v

McBurrows, 504 Mich 308 (2019), at p. 324, ruled that the defendant had a

constitutional right to trial by a jury in the county where the crime was committed.

This Petitioner has included a list of the number of times he has challenged the

trial courts jurisdiction here at p. iv.

The other issue is the inadequacy of the three Complaints located in the

Appendix at F, G and H; under well established U.S. Supreme Court case law decision,

Complaints such as these have been ruled as unconstitutional, and convictions have

been reversed.

RULE 14.1 (B)QlI). COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN

OTHER COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CASE IN THIS COURT:

06/06/05-Motion before trial on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction.

07/18/05-Motion before trial on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction.

08/12/05-Motion before trial on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction.

12/29/05-Interrogatory appeal to the Court of Appeals, Case No. 267348.

02/09/06-Motion for Directed Verdict.

08/07/07‘P. v Houthoofd, Case No. 269505, Conviction vacated 2-3-09.

11/19/07-P. vHouthoofd, Case No. 138959, Conviction reinstated 7-31-10.

08/28/12-Motion before re-sentencing at pp 1-16, Saginaw 10th Circuit.

09/27/12-Resent. @ allocution, pp 79 L 5; 81 L 23; 82 L 1-11; 84 L 5.

10.

02/29/13-Brief in Court of Appeals, Case No. 312977, at pp 1-2.

11.

04/10/14-Briefin Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. 149070, atpp 17-19.

12.

06/16/14-Motion to Disqualify Judge for Lack of Jurisdiction at p 20.

13.

01/05/15'Brief in Court of Appeals, Case No. 322592, pp 16-20.

14.

07/15/15-Brief in Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. 151970, pp 8-11.

15.

08/20/15'Habeas Corpus, Case No. 2:15*CV-12764 (E.D.S.D. Mich.).

16.

03/02/16-Habeas Corpus, Case No. 2:16*CV-10621(E.D.S.D. Mich.).

17.

03/13/17-Disqualification Hrg w/Chief Judge, 10th Circuit, pp 36*38.

18.

07/31/17-6500 Motion in COA 339459 raised warrants & jurisdiction.

19.

03/02/18-Brief in Court of Appeals, Case No. 332323 at pp 1-6.

20.

05/09/18-Brief in Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. 157740 at pp 45-49.

21.

05/10/18-Standard 4 Brief, Case No. 157740 at pp 1-5.

22.

05/18/18-6500 Motion to the Supreme Court, Case No. 157773.

23.

04/23/19-Complaint for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 2:19-CV-11305.

24.

02/06/20-Standard 4 Brief, Case No. 349886. pp 1-9.

25.

02/24/20-State Habeas Corpus, Case No. 160965, pp 1-9.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented for Review.............................................................................

Preface to the Question Presented......................................................................

Rule 14.l(B)(III). Comprehensive List of all Proceedings in Other Courts

Directly Related to the Case in this Court..........................................................

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................

List of Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statement

Table of Authorities ......................................................

Vll

Statement of Jurisdiction

Xll

Opinions Below in State Habeas Corpus Filings and Exhibits Attached

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions......................................................

xiv

Statement of the Case........................................................................................

Petitioner's Convictions do Violate the United States Constitution and

Prior Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.................................................

Reason for Granting Certiorari

Conclusion

Relief

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

There is no parent or publicly-held company owing 10% or more of the

corporation's stock.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Abelman v Booth,

62 US 506, 524 (1858)

Aguilar v Texas,

378 US 471, 481-482 (1963)

Alcarta v Texas,

355 US 28, 31 (1957) .........

Ashcroft v aTKidd,

563 US 731, 741 (2011) . . .

2, 12

Boyd v Wade Shows,

443 Mich 515, 523 (1993) . .

Cam v U.S.,

12 F.2d 580, 582 (8th Cir. 1926)

Carmel v Texas,

529 US 513, 533 (2000) . . .

11, 12

Daniels v Williams,

474 US 327, 337 (1986) . . .

El Souri v Dept, ofSocial Services,

429 Mich 203, 207 (1987) . .

Erie Railroad v Thompkins,

304 US 64, 78 (1938) .

7, 11

Ex Parte Lange,

85, US 163, 178 (1873)

Fenner v Boykin,

271 US 240, 243-44 (1926)

Xll

F S. Royster Guano Co. v Virginia,

253 US 412, 415 (1920) ...........

Gibbons v Ogden,

22 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 210 (1824)

Giordenello v US.,

357 US 480, 486 (1958) ...........

Hicks v Oklahoma,

447 US 343, 346 (1980) ...........

7, 11

Vll

Hurtado v California,

110 US 516, 527 (1964)

Jaben v US,

381 US 214, 218 (1965)

Jones v Russell,

299 F. Supp. 970, 975 (Ed, Tenn. 1969)

Ker v California,

374 US 23, 30 (1963) .............................

4,6

Miller v Florida,

482 US 423, 430 (1987) .........................

6, 13

Miller v Pate,

386 US 1, 7 (1967) ..................................

Mooney v Holohan,

294 US 103, 113 (1935) .........................

Mullaney v Wilbur,

421 US 684, 690-691 n. 11 (1975)

Napue v Illinois,

360 US 264, 269 (1959) .........................

Overton v Ohio,

534 US 982, 986 (2001) .........................

People v Clement,

72 Mich 116, 118(1888).........................

People v Haas,

79 Mich 449, 454 (1890).........................

People v Houthoofd,

487 Mich 568 (2010)...............................

ii, 1, 9, 10

People v Jackson,

192 Mich App. 10, 15 (1991)..................

People v McBurrows,

504 Mich 308 (2019)...............................

iii, 8, 9

People v Olson,

293 Mich 514, 516 (1940)......................

People v Price,

23 Mich App 663, 670 (1970)................

People v Webbs,

263 Mich App 531 533 (2004)

Powell v McCormick,

395 US 486, 547 (1969)

Pyle v Kansas,

317 US 213, 216 (1942)

Reynolds v Sims,

377 US 533, 560 (1964)

Ridgeway v Ridgeway,

454 US 46, 55 (1981) ...........

Smith v US,

360 US 1, 9 (1959)

State v Hampton,

No. 2011-1473 (Ohio, 12-2-12)

Turrill v Walker,

4 Mich 177, 180 (1956)...........

TVA v Hill,

437 US 153, 184 n. 29 (1978)

U.S. v Beasley,

485 F2 60, 62-63 (10th Cir. Ok. 1973)

US. v Branon,

457 F.2d 1062, 1065 (6th Cir. 1972) .

US. v Cabrales,

524 US 1, 5 (1998) ...............................

U.S. v Interbartolo,

192 F Supp 587, 593 (Ed. Mass. 1961)

U.S. v Jones,

174 F.2d, 746, 748 (7th. Cir. 1949)

Vitek v Jones,

445 US 480, 488 (1980)

7, 11

Whitley v Warden of Wyoming,

401 US 560, 564 (1971)

Wiggins v Smith,

539 US 510, 531 (2003)

Williams v Kaiser,

323 US 471, 473-74 (1945) .

Wong Sun v US,

371 US 471, 481-482 (1963)

Younger v Harris,

401 US 37 (1971) ................

Xll

STATUTES

MCL 600.1645

MCL 600.511

9, 10

MCL 600.519

MCL 600.524

MCL 600.535

MCL 600.8312(1)

MCL 761.1(g) .. .

MCL 761.1(0(0 •

MCL 762.3

MCL 762.4

MCL 766.4

MCL 767.45(c)(1)

1, 11

MCL 772.2

MCL 773.5

MCL 773.6

MCL 775.16................

MCR 1.109(A)(b)(ii) . .

MCR 6.001(D)(3) ....

MCR 8.108(C) ............

MCR 8.119(D)(l)(d)(4)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Mich Const. 1963, art 1, sec 11.

xiv, 5

Mich Const. 1963, art 1, sec 17.

XIV

Mich. Const. 1963, art. 3, sec. 7

1,8

Mich. Const. 1963, art 7, sec. 4 .

U.S. Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 2

U.S. Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 2, cl. 3

ii, 9

U.S. Constitution, Am. IV..................

xiv, 1-4

U.S. Constitution, Am. V..................

xiv, 1, 4, 7

U.S. Constitution, Am. VI

ii, xiv, 1, 6, 10

U.S. Constitution, Am. VIII

1, 13

U.S. Constitution, Am. XIII

..............xiv, 1, 4, 13

U.S. Constitution, Am. XIV

xiv, 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12

U.S. Constitution, Am. XV.........

U.S. Constitution, Am. XV, sec 2,

U.S. Constitution, Am. XXIV . . .

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This action is being brought pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1254. This Honorable

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1257(a); Rules of the Supreme Court

gives the court discretion to consider a state case that "has so far departed from the

acceptable and usual course of judicial proceedings, as to call for an exercise of the

court's supervisory power."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Younger vHarris, 401 US 37 (1971) that

"extraordinary circumstances do allow the federal courts to enjoin a pending criminal

procedure when intervention is necessary for the protection of constitutional rights and

without federal intervention, 'the danger of irreparable loss is both great and

immediate."' at p. 45 quoting Fenner vBoykin, 271 US 240, 243-44 (1926).

Finally, this court has jurisdiction that when a prisoner is held under a sentence

by any court of the United States in regard to a matter wholly beyond or without

jurisdiction of that court, it is not only within the authority of this court, but it is the

duty to inquire into the cause of the commitment and if found to be as charged, to

immediately release the prisoner from confinement.

The date of the judgment sought to be reviewed was entered on October 27,

2020, by the Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. 160965(23), Appendix C-l.

Xll

OPINIONS BELOW IN PETITIONER'S STATE HABEAS FILINGS

Appendix A

Manistee Co. Circuit Court, Case No. 19-16841-AH. Order to Show

Cause Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not Enter, dated 1021-2019.

Appendix A-l

Manistee Co. Circuit Court, Case No. 19-16841-AH.

Denying Motion for Reconsideration, dated 11-7-2019.

Appendix B

MI COA, Case No. 351654. Denial of Habeas Corpus, dated 1-172020.

Appendix C

MI Supreme Court, Case No. 160965. Denial of Application for

Leave to Appeal, dated 7-28-2020.

Appendix C-l

MI Supreme Court, Case No. 160965. Order Denying Motion for

Rehearing, dated 10-27-2020.

Order

EXHIBITS ATTACHED

Appendix D

Affidavit for Default Judgment.

Appendix E

Complaint for Preliminary Injunction dated 4-23-2019. 48 pages

Appendix F

Complaint - false pretenses - insufficient.

Appendix G

Complaint - witness intimidation - insufficient.

Appendix H

Complaint - solicitation of murder - insufficient.

Appendix I

MCL 762.4 jurisdiction established in the county.

Appendix J

Article in Criminal Defense Newsletter - 12-5-2012.

Appendix K

Affidavit of George Mullison.

Appendix L

The constant re-sentencing.

Appendix M

Testimony of Dena Vrable.

Appendix N

Letter to Assistant Attorney General Robyn Frankel.

Appendix O

Dissenting Opinions of Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanaugh.

Appendix P

Partial Motion transcript.

Appendix Q

MCLS 761.1(0(0

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

A. Petitioner's right not to be imprisoned, having been denied due process of law

under both state and federal constitutions, Mich Const. 1963, art 1, §2, 17/ U.S. Const.

Am. 4, 5, 613, 14.

B. Petitioner's right not to be imprisoned, having been denied state court

decisional law statutes and constitution that were relied upon.

C. Petitioner's right not to be imprisoned, by a trial court that lacked personal

and subject matter jurisdiction.

D. Petitioner's right not to be imprisoned, when the prosecutor did not prove

venue of the crime.

E. Petitioner's right not to be imprisoned, on police perjury.

xiv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. 28

USC 2241(c)(3).

Proof of venue of the crime in Michigan is both a constitutional right of the

accused and a fact essential to the jurisdiction of the trial court where venue of the

crime must be proven by the prosecution. Mich Const. 1963, art. 3, sec 7/ MCL

767.45(c)(1).

A defendant in Michigan has a right to trial in the county where the crime

occurred and by a jury of that county. Mich Const. 1963, art. 3, sec. 7

The charge(s) of intimidation of a witness and solicitation to murder were forumshopped to this improper county by a police officer after the prosecutors in Arenac, Bay,

and Ogemaw counties declined to charge after their investigations. The Michigan

Attorney General's Office also declined prosecution of Petitioner.

Every charge was manufactured by the police and prosecution where it can be

clearly determined in Federal Case 05-CV-10003-BC by deposed officers who testified

they did not have "probable cause to arrest." Federal depositions 3-21-2006, p. 110;

7-13-2006 p. 42.

An officer did perjure the venue of the crime(s) as Saginaw in his Complaint for

an arrest warrant. Appendix G and H.

The Michigan Supreme Court found this to be harmless error in People v

Houthoofd, 487 Mich 568 (2010), and denied review on 10-27-2020, in state habeas

corpus.

Petitioner has been denied his federal due processes of law pursuant to the U.S.

Constitution Amendments 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 14th. He has been imprisoned by

a court lacking personal and subject matter jurisdiction because of perjury as to venue

of the crime(s) and violations of substantive due process.

This ruling by Michigan Supreme Court on the issues raised herein have split

other state Circuit Courts, Federal Courts, and the United States Supreme Court and

needs immediate resolution to stem the harm of false incarceration.

PETITIONER'S CONVICTIONS DO VIOLATE THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION AND PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME

COURT.

This Honorable Court has historically granted certiorari or summary reversal

for its citizens on issues that have been previously decided when their incarcerations

are in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

If a legal issue has not been considered by the state court, this court will review

de novo. Wiggins v Smith, 539 US 510, 531 (2003), under the authority of 28 USC

1257(a).

This Honorable Court has spoken:

"Courts shall regard the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance

thereof as the Supreme law of the land. They must not give effect to state

laws that conflict with federal law. Supremacy Clause Art. 6, cl. 2."

Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 210 (1824).

The Michigan Supreme Court has in the past recognized this command in Boyd

v Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523 (1993), but has ignored this Petitioner's Motions on

the trial court's lack of jurisdiction because of procedural due process, police perjury

on venue of the crime, and insufficient complaints for warrants that were without

probable cause. See this Certiorari p. iv for the times raised.

This Honorable Court has spoken:

"It is not required that a case be directly on point, but only that existing

precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question

beyond debate." Ashcroft v al-Kidd, 563 US 731, 741 (2011).

Petitioner has included for review his Felony Complaints in the Appendix at pp F, G,

The U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment states:

"that no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath . . ."

Petitioner will focus on the Complaint for solicitation located at Appendix H.

This Complaint as upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court has split the federal

courts and needs immediate United States Supreme Court resolution, in this extreme

circumstance where there has been an ongoing obvious subterfuge to evade

consideration of a federal issue over 16 years by constant resentencing from a court

lacking jurisdiction. Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684, 690-691 n. 11 (1975).

In Giordenello v U.S., 357 US 480, 486 (1958) it was held that a Complaint

unaccompanied by an affidavit which only stated on a specific date the defendant

violated an enumerated statute and where the affiant did not speak with any personal

knowledge and did not indicate any source for the

affiant's belief was

unconstitutionally deficient. This court went on to say that the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rules 3, 4, and 18 U.S.C.A. were not met.

In other decided cases where the Complaint lacked probable cause, all held fast

to the Giordenello decision. U.S. vInterbartolo, 192 F Supp 587, 593 (Ed. Mass. 1961);

Jaben v US, 381 US 214, 218 (1965) it stated the hypothetical question:

"What makes you think that the defendant committed the offense

charged? If the answer could not be answered by asking the hypothetical

question, the complaint lacked probable cause to issue a warrant."

In Whiteley v Warden of Wyoming, 401 US 560, 564 (1971), the Complaint was

violating the Petitioner's U.S. Constitution 4th and 14th Amendment rights.

In US. v Beasley, 485 F.2d. 60, 62-63 (10th Cir. Ok. 1973) noted that the

Complaint lacked "corroborating evidence either within the four corners of the

complaint or orally. Therefore, neither rules 3 or 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure nor the 4th Amendment were satisfied."

Finally, in the case of Overton v Ohio, 534 US 982, 986 (2001) citing to

Giordenello and Whiteley as controlling, the Complaint's requirement to meet the

standards of F.R.C.P. Rule 4 and the U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment, it made clear

that complaints lacking probable cause were insufficient and summary reversal was

granted. This court even provided a pictorial of Overton's Complaint showing what

insufficiency looks like, possibly because of the irritation of having to make the same

decisions over and over, in favor of the wrongfully convicted. There is no difference in

Petitioner's Complaints when compared to Overton's Complaint, EXCEPT in

Petitioner's Complaints at Appendix G, H, where fraud was committed.

Petitioner's US. Constitution Amendment 13 §1 rights have been violated

because he was not "duly convicted."

In Ker v California, 374 US 23, 30 (1963), the court held that the same probable

cause standards were applicable to federal and state warrants under the 14th

Amendment.

The US. Constitution 4th Amendment provides that:

"... no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath

or affirmation ..."

The U.S. Constitution 5th Amendment provides that:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime ... nor be deprived

of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. . . ."

In Michigan, the primary function of the Complaint is to move the magistrate

to determine whether a warrant shall issue. It is the first step in the procedure to

establish the jurisdiction of the court. People v Clement, 72 Mich 116, 118 (1888).

MCL 772.2 states that the Complaint Exam, also known as the Swear to

Hearing for Probable Cause, is necessary to start the court's jurisdiction and without

the exam there exists a radical jurisdictional defect.

MCL 773.5provides that an oath shall be administered to each witness by the

magistrate.

MCL 773.6provides that all witnesses that are examined shall be recorded by

a stenographer or district court recorder.

The Michigan Constitution 1963, art. 1, sec. 11, states that:

"No warrant will issue without the support of an oath."

In the case of People vHaas, 79 Mich 449, 454 (1890), this court held more than

100 years ago that no warrant can issue without the showing of probable cause

supported by oath or affirmation.

The law provides pursuant to MCR1.109(A)(b)(ii) that the records of a trial court

may not be disposed of, except as authorized by the records retention and disposal

schedule upon order of the chiefjudge of that court. Before disposing of records subject

to the order, the court shall first transfer them to the Archives of Michigan. The law

provides pursuant to MCR 8.108(C) that all records as defined by MCR

8.119(D)(1)(d)(4) and regardless of format that are created and kept by the court must

remain in the physical possession of the court.

The court stenographer's notes could only be destroyed by Order of the court's

chief judge of the Saginaw Circuit Court. Opinion Attorney General, June 17, 1952,

no. 1555.

MCL 761.1(g), MCL 766.4, and MCL 775.16 make it clear that the Swear to

Hearing for Probable Cause is not to be confused with the Preliminary Examination

and must be held before a neutral and detached magistrate in offenses carrying a

possible sentence of more than one year in prison.

Nothing like this happened in Petitioner's convictions; it was arbitrarily skipped.

There is no evidence in the clerk's records, therefore the State's issuance of an arrest

warrant was not based on probable cause. See Appendix K.

Skipping the Probable Cause Hearing has split many decisions rendered by the

United States Supreme Court. Smith v US, 360 US 1, 9 (1959), statutes must be

construed in favor of the defendant where his substantial rights were concerned.

Miller v Florida, 482 US 423, 430 (1987), legislatively-enacted statutes permit

individuals to rely on their meanings until changed.

TVA vHill, 437 US 153, 184 n. 29 (1978), when confronted with a statute which

is plain and unambiguous on its face, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the

text.

Wong Sun v US, 371 US 471, 481-482 (1963), a probable cause hearing must be

made to assess the officer's credibility.

Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 471, 481-482 (1963), a reviewing court may only

consider those facts that were presented to the magistrate.

The reason there is nothing to review is because it never happened and due

process is intended to secure the individual from arbitrary exercise of the powers of the

government. Hurtado v California, 110 US 516, 527 (1964).

The trial court never gained jurisdiction and Petitioner's conviction(s) were

pronounced in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court because jurisdiction was

absent at the beginning or because it was lost in the course of the proceedings. This

was structural error for which harmless error analysis cannot attach.

In Ker v California, supra, the court held that the same probable cause

standards were applicable to federal and state warrants under the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, the Michigan Supreme Court's decision of applying harmless error

does not follow what this Honorable Court has established stating:

"There can be no question about the right of a person charged with a

crime to be tried in the venue in which the crime is alleged to have been

committed." citing to: Art 3, sec. 2, Constitution of the United States.

6th Amendment to the United States Constitution - requiring proof of

venue. Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Courts have not hesitated to reverse a conviction where the government

has failed to prove venue."

See Cain v U.S., 12 F.2d 580, 582 (8th Cir. 1926); U.S. v Jones, 174 F.2d, 746, 748 (7th.

Cir. 1949); U.S. vBranon, 457 F.2d 1062, 1065 (6th Cir. 1972); Jones vRussell, 299 F.

Supp. 970, 975 (Ed, Tenn. 1969); State v Hampton, No. 2011-1473 (Ohio, 12-2-12)

stating^

"If the state fails to produce evidence of proper venue, then the evidence

is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, See

Appendix J.

Clearly the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to apply harmless error has split

this issue as decided by federal courts and other state Supreme Courts and needs

immediate TJ.S. Supreme Court resolution.

Still another split created by the Michigan Supreme Court has been to let stand

Petitioner's conviction(s) on police perjury knowingly used by the prosecutor and the

suppression of a favorable witness, which directly contradicts rulings in the following

cases. Mooney v Holohan, 294 US 103, 113 (1935); Pyle v Kansas, 317 US 213, 216

(1942); Alcarta v Texas, 355 US 28, 31 (1957); Napue v Illinois, 360 US 264, 269

(1959); Miller vPate, 386 US 1, 7 (1967), stating that:

"The 14th Amendment cannot tolerate a state criminal conviction

obtained by the knowing use of false evidence and the suppression of

favorable evidence to the accused."

In yet another split the Michigan Supreme Court has failed to answer is, this

Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection in accordance with the laws of

this state as stated: Hicks v Oklahoma, 447 US 343, 346 (1980); Vitek v Jones, 445 US

480, 488 (1980); Erie Railroad v Thompkins, 304 US 64, 78 (1938).

All stating that state statutes create a liberty interest that entitle a defendant

to the procedural protection of the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

In Hicks, the harmless error rule was applied erroneously by Oklahoma.

In Erie Railroad, it said that state court decisional law, the state statutes, and

Constitution must be followed.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in People v Olson, 293 Mich 514, 516

(1940):

"It cannot be seriously claimed that a prosecution can be had in a county

where the crime was not actually perpetrated."

In Turn'll v Walker, 4 Mich 177,180 (1856), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled:

"The jurisdiction of Circuit Courts in this state is limited to the

boundaries of the county."

In Abelman v Booth, 62 US 506, 524 (1858), this court ruled:

"There is no lawful authority outside the limits of the jurisdiction of the

court or judge by whom it is issued."

The Michigan Supreme Court decision in Houthoofdis in direct violation of the

U.S. 14th Amendment.

MCL 762.3 states that the prosecutor must prove venue of the crime. People v

Webbs, 263 Mich App 531, 533 (2004).

MCL 600.8312(1) states that a defendant has a right to be tried where the

offense was committed.

MCL 762.4 states that the court lacks jurisdiction to prosecute if the offense was

committed more than 100 rods from the county border.

And Mich. Const. 1963, art. 3, sec. 7, recognizes the common law guarantee

enumerated within the Bill of Rights which includes both substantive and procedural

due process. Daniels v Williams, 474 US 327, 337 (1986).

The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Court of Appeals decision

made in the case of People vMcBurrows, 504 Mich 308 (2019):

"A criminal trial should be by a jury of a county where the offense was

committed, at page 313.

"The general venue rule is derived from the common law." at p. 314."

"Venue is proper in a criminal trial where the offense was committed is

a mandatory aspect of criminal venue in Michigan." at p. 315.

"The proper venue at common law is in the county where the crime

occurred." at page 320.

The Michigan Supreme Court was adamant that McBurrows supra., the

defendant could only be charged in the proper county and his case could not be forumshopped into Monroe County where the crime did not occur.

In 2010 this was harmless error in People vHouthoofd, supra. In 2019 this was

a constitutional right in People vMcBurrows, supra., citing to US. Constitution, Art.

3, sec. 2, cl. 3 at p. 316.

Structural error did affect the framework in which the Houthoofd trial

proceeded.

In 2020 the same issue is ignored in this Petitioner's State Habeas Corpus Case

No. 160965. Appendix C. This Petitioner brought this issue pursuant to People v

Price, 23 Mich App 663, 670 (1970). "A radical jurisdictional defect."

This Honorable Court has ruled in Ridgeway vRidgeway, 454 US 46, 55 (1981)

that:

"The Supremacy Clause Art. 6, cl. 2 prevails over and displaces

inconsistent state law."

At issue is the inconsistency of the law applied both before and after the

Houthoofd decision in 2010, in violation of the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment.

At issue is the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the law which

has been violated. Two defendants identically situated have been treated differently

for no rational reason.

Mr. McBurrows had his case dismissed. Petitioner, on the other hand is serving

a sentence of 30-50 years and has been constantly re-sentenced for more than 10 years

by a court that never legally attained jurisdiction because the prosecutor never proved

venue of the crime as occurring within his jurisdiction, as described by statue MCL

600.511.

The Michigan One Court of Justice decisions upholding Petitioner's conviction

runs afoul and splits the U.S. Supreme Court's decision where this Honorable Court

has spoken in F.S. Royster Guano Co. v Virginia, 253 US 412, 415 (1920) stating that:

"the equal protection guarantee requires that persons in similar

circumstances be treated alike."

The Michigan Supreme Court also recognizes the equal protection guarantee for

similarly situated defendants in ElSouri vDept. ofSocial Services, 429 Mich 203, 207

(1987).

There is no real distinction between the cases of McBurrows and Petitioner

Houthoofd where both defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on improper venue

prior to trial.

Not only is the U.S. 14th Amendment violated, but the U.S. 6th Amendment

provides:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy

trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime

shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously

ascertained by law. . . ." See here p. ii.

Previously ascertained by law simply means that the four county Circuit Courts

are all described by statute. Saginaw County is MCL 600.51L Bay County is MCL

600.519, Arenac County is MCL 600.524 and Ogemaw County is MCL 600.535.

In Michigan, MCL 761.1(0(0 defines the district as the county. This is in accord

with the U.S. 6th Amendment. See Appendix Q.

Three counties found insufficient evidence that the crime(s) occurred and refused

to issue arrest warrants after their investigations had been completed.

In People v Houthoofd, supra at pp 593, 606, and 607, the Michigan Supreme

Court stated clearly that "venue was improper," but the "error was harmless" citing to

the venue statue for civil trials, MCL 600.1645, instead of the venue statute for

criminal trials of MCL 767.45(c)(1), for which the court rule does not allow this

intermingling of civil and criminal statutes. MCR 6.001(D)(3). See Editor's notes.

Therefore, the trials were not held in the district which had been previously

ascertained by law and thus violated the U.S. Constitution 6th Amendment meaning

that the sentencings of the 10th Circuit under which this Petitioner is held a prisoner

was pronounced without authority and he should therefore be discharged. Ex Parte

Lange, 85 US 163, 178 (1873).

The antics employed by Michigan run afoul and splits the decisions that States

must play by their own rules in which this Honorable Court has addressed in Vitek v

Jones, supra., Hicks v Oklahoma, supra, Erie Railroad, supra and Carmel v Texas, 529

US 513, 533 (2000).

This was an egregious act of forum-shopping by the police more than three years

after the case had been closed by the proper Arenac, Bay and Ogemaw prosecutor's

offices and violates the U.S. 14th Amendments a way that has violated quite possibly

the right of the People to vote under the U.S. Constitution 24th Amendment.

Not only does forum-shopping undermine the integrity of the judicial system," it

also undermines the Nation's representative democracy.

The right of the People to vote SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED.

Prosecutors are elected by the citizens as the chief law enforcement officer of

their counties to decide whether to prosecute or what charges to file. People v Jackson,

192 Mich App 10, 15 (1991). He is responsible for his actions to the voters/citizens of

his county. Mich. Const. 1963, art. 7, sec 4. Nothing in Michigan law gives this

authority to the police.

The rights of the voters in Arenac, Bay and Ogemaw counties were stripped

when their voices were not heard through their elected county officials when their

officials told the police that "we are not charging," this Petitioner with a crime.

In Ashcroft v al-Kidd, supra, this Honorable Court has stated.:

"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in

the election of those who make the laws under which we must live. Other

rights are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Reynolds v Sims,

377 US 533, 560 (1964).

"The fundamental principal of our representative democracy is that the

people should choose whom they please to govern them." Powell v

McCormick, 395 US 486, 547 (1969) citing Elliot's Debates 257.

The State of Michigan has abandoned its compelling interest in preserving the

integrity of the election process held by the people in Arenac, Bay and Ogemaw

counties and has not only violated this Petitioner's rights, the rights of the county

prosecutors, but also the rights of many thousands of voters.

The State of Michigan has denied everyone the equal protection of the law

secured by the US. 14th Amendment and has abridged these citizens' right to vote and

abrogated it to the police, knowing that the venue of the two crimes were perjured and

knowingly used by the Saginaw prosecutor, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution,

15th Amendment.

This action splits and runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court and needs

immediate correction to save a meaningful right to vote in a free society.

U.S.

Constitution, 15th Amendment, sec. 2.

This Petitioner filed for default judgment with the Michigan Supreme Court

because of the non-response from the warden and this has been ignored. See Appendix

This Petitioner has included the Complaint for Preliminary Injunction he filed

and its Order of Denial from one of the times he has raised the jurisdictional defect.

See Appendix E. 48 pages.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the government must play by

their own rules. Carmel v Texas, supra, and Michigan has not, even knowing that

statutes permit individuals to rely on their meanings until changed and the statutes

have not changed. Miller v Florida, supra.

REASON FOR GRANTING THE CERTIORARI

Reason 1 - This was a false arrest without probable cause, prosecutors from the

proper counties would not charge, this is a structural error.

Reason 2 - There is nothing new to consider. Insufficient warrants and lack of

jurisdiction for being tried in the wrong county and conviction on perjury has been

settled and resettled for a 100 years.

Reason 3 - Is to preserve voters' rights from being denied or abridged.

CONCLUSION

Since neither the Michigan Supreme Court nor the Respondent answered, with

an explanation, they must be in agreement with this Petitioner, this Honorable Court

can assume that Petitioner's allegations are true. Williams vKaiser, 323 US 471, 47374 (1945) and under F.R.C.P. Rule 29, without proof of venue there can be no

conviction, and this constitutes a radical jurisdictional defect..

RELIEF

Grant the Writ for Certiorari or summary reversal or default judgment under

F.R.C.P. 55(a), (b). See Appendix D. Order expungement of Petitioner's criminal

convictions because he has not been duly convicted pursuant to the US. Constitution

13th Amendment and is currently in involuntary servitude and this is cruel and

unusual punishment under the US. Constitution 8th Amendment. This court has this

authority pursuant to 28 USC 2106, whereas remanding the case to a lower court will

only result in another appeal and further delay.

Date^

Respectfully submitted,

; 2021

Tod Houthoofd #596112

Oaks Correctional Facility

1500 Caberfae Hwy.

Manistee, MI 49660

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.