Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Timmy Orlando Collier, Petitioner v. Michigan

t

24-ms

No.

t§®i^

IN THE

FILED

MAY 0 2 2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

LV-eAt3u\-e. AyK-S i \LW2 •€j"\

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

VLcWg£aA

SuN-WU.

fLou/V

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Tuv\<m (VI^aAa CnWxJhT

(Your Name)

2 25 cJ d\A CorvUv 1^) f ist £

(Address)

L>(Wi UvlUvS^v

(City, State, Zip Code)

(Phone Number)

RECEIVED

MAY 1 6 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

J

STATEMENT OF QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

DID THE DISTRICT COURT COMMIT A RADICAL

JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BY NOT FOLLOWING

MICHIGAN'S LAW AND STANDARDS SET FORTH BY

MCL's, MCR's, AND FOURTH, FIFTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION?

DID THE COURT OF APPEALS BECOME AN

ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WHEN

THE PROSECUTOR FAILED TO FILE A RESPONSE

TO THE ORDER GIVEN BY THE COURT OF

APPEALS, THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHTS

TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW.

DID MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR

VIOLATE APPELLANT’S FOURTH AMENDMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND EQUAL

PROTECTION OF THE LAW BY SECURING AN ARREST

WARRANT WITH "BARE-30NE" COMPLAINT?

V

LIST OF PARTIES

J

■.

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

\_A All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

hh\ck>f!Qr\ $u$(mL CWf

CL&vA of

S,*Wv Ciftifti C-Da'A

RELATED CASES

flfcoPk v. LkskvA, 32/ kch.Affi 2lb>M A/.W 2A 321 2t»7 M<ih. k». LutS N31. Jtoxki Joh 13, hi!

%_6ih v. UasUsIbn, 2oU kith. L&lS tilt' 2o2l VJL 32o3JO.

Jet^eJ J»h 29,2&2I

liJ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

i

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

©

CONCLUSION

2d

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

Le&sibn, c£ Sh!k ‘SiPr.tMi d&Jrt

cJr Stafe Ckurt bC Ap&ois

DkiSterv 6-f SUct Cjro/J Cflu/T

NWawv tb bVjic(

T)i5m<&s liii-fh

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix nAA__to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[/] is unpublished.

The opinion of the__________________________

appears at Appendix

__to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[/I is unpublished.

1.

court

9

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was_____________________

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ___________

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including______

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was Kfafth 2.^ < 2d25 .

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

_____________________, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date) in

Application No. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2.

TakU of AulWi'haS Ci^i CgfiS^tfevyaii 3rd

Avowed-

Clement. 254 Mich. App. at 394

People v. Duncan, 494 Mich. 713, 722-723;

835 NW 2d 399 (2013)

People v. Hammond, 187 Mich. App. 105, 107;

446 NW 2d 335 (1991)

People v. Hatfield. 46 Mich. App. 149, 150-151;

207 NW 2d 485 (1973)

People v. Jackson. 178 Mich. App. 62; 443 NW

2d 423 (1989)

People v. Price. 23 Mich. App. 663, 179 N.W. 2d 177,

1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1907 (Mich. Ct. App. (1970)

Moses v. Pep * t of Corr.., 274 Mich. App.

Lexis 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007)

Hinton v. Parole Bd • t 148 Mich. App. 235,

244-245; 383 NW 2d 626 (1986)

Estelle v. Gamble. 429 US 97, 106; 97

S. Ct. 285; 50 L Ed 2d (1976)

People.v. Walker. 328 Mich. App. 429, 436;

938 NW 2d 31 (2019)

People v. Walma. 26 Mich. App. 326, 327-328;

182 NW 2d 110 (1970)

People v. Washington, 321 Mich. App. 276, 908 NW

2d 924, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1431

Washington. 2021 Mich. LEXIS 1314; 2021 WL 320310.

People v. Williams. 483 Mich. 226, 231; 769

NW 2d 605 (2009)

Wilcox v. Billings. 200 Kan. 654; 438 P2d 108 (1965)

In re Hague. 412 Mich. 532, 544; 315 N.W. 2d 524 (1986)

In re Stone. 295 Mich. 207, 209; 294 NW 156 (1940)

United States v. Conley. 4 F.3d 1200,

1206 (3d Cir. 1993)

United States v. Miller. 197 F.3d 644

Jones. 994 F.2d at 1055.

Muskrat v. U.Si. t 346; 31 Ct. 250; 55 L.ED 246 (1911)

United States v. Whitner. 219 F.3d

289, 296 (3d Cir. 2000)

:?f

At

7,i7

8

8,18

(?, l2>

*5

i4

12

127

5,^3

5,3, 13

12

7,1 Ip

1.4 n •> j

Hi,,23

5,13

U,l£

lL>, \ 9

MICHIGAN COURT RULES

AND COMPILED LAWS

MCR 6.102 Subrule (B)

MCR 6.502

MCR 6.502 (D)

MCR 6.502 (G)

MCR 6.502 (G)(2)

MCR 6.502 subrule (G)(2)

MCR 6.502 (G)(1), subrule (G)(2)

MCL 600.4310

MCL 600.4310(3)

5/W

13

7

12

5/i4

12-

l4

Constitutional Provisions

U, l5

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

£ee. xU^WpA Va-Q'f s

4.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Michigan Caorta, (Oakland Ceunty Circuit Caurt, Michigan Caurt af

Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Caurt) base thair denial af petitiener's Writ

af Habeas Carpus an petitianer raising a successiver aetien. The Michigan

Appellate Caurts tetally ignare the cases af Peaple v. Washingten. 321 Mich.

App. 276 , 908 NW 2d 924, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1431: aad affirmed in

Washingten. 2021 Mich. LEXIS 1314; 2021 WL 320310, which state: a aatian

far relief fraa judgaent under MCR 6.502 is aerely a "Precedural Vehicle,”

and aur deterainatien that relief fraa judgaent was unavailable ta defendant

dees net end aur inquiry. See Cleaent. 254 Mich. App. at 394 (explaining

that a caurt is baund ta natice the liaits af its autharity and ta recagnize

sua spante it's lack af jurisdictian. Regardless af whether the issue was

raised in an iapraperly supparted aatian, the trial caurt clearly had the

pawer ta censider the jurisdictianal issue braught ta its attentian.

Petitianer*s pleadings were clearly titled ”Writ af Habeas Carpus,”

Petitaner cites Dnited States v. Miller. 197 F.3d 644, in that case, it states

that the Caurt af Appeals nated, upan review, that witheut the benefit af

a twa-part Adams' natice requirement, appellant had neither the appartunity

ta "agree" ar "disagree" that his pra se matians be recharacterized as a

single §2255 aatian nar the appartunity ta withdraw the aatian rather than

have it recharacterized. Because the district caurt did nat give appellant

natificatian af this nature, the caurt af appeals set aside the lewer caurt's

decisian ta recharacterize appellant's twa past-canvictian matians, vacated

it's arder af dismissal, and remanded. This caurt shauld remand this case

as the caurt did in Miller, the caurt af appeals gave the prasecutar 28 days

ta file an answer, clearly shewing that the caurt at this paint acknawledged

Petitianer Calier's pleadings as a writ af habeas carpus, ar, vialating MCR

6.502 subrule (G)(2) by nat returning ta the appellant witheut filing ar

give natice that his pleadings were being recharacterized.

Washingten plainly and clearly states that a aatian far relief fram

judgment under MCR 6.502 is merely a "precedural vehicle," shewing that the

prasecutian has failed ta address the substantive issue in defendant’s metien

far relief fram judgaent, which, while braught pursuant ta an inapplicable

caurt rule, nevertheless, canstitutes an iapartant and reviewable claim af

errar.

s.

Because district ceurt lacked an affidavit, they lacked jurisdiction

te held a prehable cause hearing, failure te obtain affidavit mandates that

the petitioner be discharged.

While section MCL 600.4310(3) prohibits habeas corpus from serving as

a substitute for appeal to review merits of a criminal conviction, Habeas

Corpus is available where the convicting court was radically without

jurisdiction to try defendant for crime in question so that the conviction

is absolutely void. People v. Price. 23 Mich. App. 663, 179 N.W. 2d 177,

1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1907 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). MCL 600.4310(3) gives

petitioner the right to review and ascertain if the convicting court was

"radically” without jurisdiction to try defendant for crime in question.

Petitioner contends that the reason for the prosecutor failing to respond

to the petitioner’s pleadings is due solely to the crux(crucial point) of

his radical jurisdictional defect issue in both cases, the West Bloomfield

Police Department's case hinged upon the 9-page statement given by Carol

Giles, after she gave this statement, officer's asked Carol Giles if she

could pass a polygraph to the statement she just gave, her response was "no,"

her statement was not credible nor her information reliable, this is evidenced

by the fact that officers could not raise their right hand and swear under

oath that the information they received was true and accurate to the best

of their knowledge, information and belief, and in this lack of information

lies the radical jurisdictional defect.

The Supreme Court of Kansas was presented with an almost identical case

and reasoned that the statute therein involved was mandatory and not merely

directory, and that therefore the failure of the police officer to formally

"swear" rendered the proceedings invalid. Wilcox v. Billings. 200 Kan. 654;

438 P2d 108 (1965). According to the rules and language spoken of in Wilcox

v. Billings,

invalid.

the proceedings and outcome of the trial must be rendered

Petitioner asserts that his Fourth and Sixth Amendment Right to Due

Process were deliberately violated by the Oakland County Prosecutors by their

failing to perform their clear legal duty of filing the proper criminal

affidavit, complaint and arrest warrant and failure to hold a proper probable

cause hearing. Therefore no jurisdiction is attached te any court to try,

convict, and imprison petitioner. Muskrat v. U.S,. 346; 31 Ct. 250; 55 L.ED

246 (1911). In both of Petitioner's cases, the prosecutor failed to file

b

a affidavit, making these cases the praduct of "Unauthorized Processes.”

Habeas relief is warranted in these cases because this (or any) court is

without jurisdiction, as the current confinement of petitioner is derived

from an unauthorized process.

Consequently, Habeas Corpus relief is warranted in this instant case

to cure this travesty of justice.

Petitoner contends that where the trial court was divested of it's lawful

jurisdiction, it can only order dismissal of petitioner's case, according

to In re Hague. 412 Mich. 532, 544; 315 N.W. 2d 524(1986).

The travesty of justice docs not stop here, On July 11,2024, the Michigan

Court of Appeals gave the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office 28 days to file

an answer to petitioner's application, the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office

never responded, the petitioner's pleadings were denied alleging them to

be a successive motion. On January 30th, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court

gave the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office until February 24th, 2025 to

file an answer to the application, the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office

never responded, On March 28th, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court denied

petitioner's writ of habeas corpus citing MCR 6.502(G) which is denial of

successive motion. In both courts, the prosecutor did not file a brief

opposing petitioner's claim on appeal. As stated in People v. Smith, 190

Mich. App. 352, (page 3 of 4, section II), it states: "As a second and

alternative basis for reversal, we hold that the failure of the prosecutor

to file a brief or otherwise defend constitutes a confession of error. We

however, do not establish a per se rule that such a failure constitutes a

confession of error in all cases. Rather, we hold that this court, in the

exercise of it's discretion, may deem the failure of an appellee to file

a brief or otherwise defend an appeal to be a confession of error. People

v. Hammond. 187 Mich. App. 105, 107; 446 NW 2d 335(1991).

As stated in People v. Walma.

110(1970):

26 Mich.

App 326,

327-328; 182 NW2d

Though provided ample opportunity, the prosecutor failed to file any

written or other objection to the appeal, any motion to affirm, or any brief

in this case. Further, though noticed of the time and place for oral argument

before this court, no one from the Allegan Prosecutor's office appeared to

orally argue or even notified the court that it would or would not argue

the same.

7.

In view of the lack of any opposition whatsoever by the Allegan County

Prosecutor we are led to the inevitable conclusion that the prosecutor, if

he does not by such total inaction or indifference agree with the defendant

that reversible error was committed, at least dees not object to reversal

and remand for a new trial which we accordingly do, particularly in view

of the question raised.

Later in People v. Hatfield. 46 Mich. App. 149, 150-151; 207 NW 2d

485(1973), we noted that this Court is ill suited to serve as an advocate

for a prosecutor who chooses not to defend an appeal.

On February 26th, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Object and Dismiss

with Prejudice to try and stop the Court from rendering a decision in

violation of the cases, compiled laws cited in this pleading. Petitioner's

Motion to Object and Dismiss with Prejudice is attached to this pleading

and listed as Appendix "D."

Despite the fact that this Court in "Walma" placed the prosecutors on

notice that their failure to respond to the defendant's allegations would

be treated as admissions that such allegations were true, this Court has

continued to be plagued with criminal appeals in which the prosecutor has

failed to respond. This, in turn, has placed this Court in the uncomfortable

position of having to first act as the prosecutor's advocate, and then render

a decision on the merits.

Also see People v. Jackson. 178 Mich. App. 62; 443 NW 2d 423(1989),

it states: While we sympathize with the prosecutor's predicament of case

overload and inadequate staffing, Our Court suffers from a similar plight,

which makes it impossible for us to perform the advocacy duties of the

prosecutor's office. Reversed and Remanded for a new trial before a different

judge.

Petitioner Collier's Writ of Habeas Corpus is not complex, in fact,

it's very simple to render a decision in, Petitioner Collier contends that

the Oakland County Prosecutors Office started the judicial process against

him using an "Unauthorized,""Illegal"Process, Petitoner Collier also contends

that the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office "never" had probable cause

established to arrest him prior to his arrest. Oakland County Prosecutor's

Office can not show how they got credible and reliable information out of

Carol Giles' 9-page statement that she gave to officers; officers asked Carol

Giles if she could pass a polygraph to the statement she just gave and her

8.

response was "no."

The Radical Jurisdictional Defect occurred in this case when Oakland

County Prosecutors failed to have officers "swear," under oath to the

information contained in the affidavit because there was no affidavit filed

in petitioner's case(s), Petitioner has cited MCR's, MCL’s and Statutes

pertaining to the illegal process used by the Oakland County Prosecutors

Office, showing that they used an "Unauthorized Process," Petitioner again

cites People v. Washington. 321 Mich. App. 276, 908 NW 2d 924, 2017 Mich.

App. LEXIS 1431, affirmed in Washington. 2021 Mich. LEXIS 1314; 2021 WL

320310 • * due to that case stating that the successive motion was a "Procedural

Vehicle" only used to get the "radical defect" issue before the court, because

the court was "bound" to address this issue, and petitioner cites People

v. Smith, 190 Mich. App. 352, stating that when the Court gives the prosecutor

an order to respond and they don't, that it is considered a confession of

error, and that caselaw suggest that reverse and remand is appropriate to

cure the travesty of justice, and doing so in Petitioner Collier's case would

set new precedence pertaining to this issue as well as benefit the similarly

situated who have their case come before the court raising the same issue

as Petitioner Collier's case(s).

9.

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Sec. 2.H:3£V\&A

10

REASON FOB GRANTING

THF. PETTTTON

DID THE DISTRICT COURT COMMIT A RADICAL

JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BY NOT FOLLOWING

MICHIGAN'S LAW AND STANDARDS SET FORTH BY

MCL's. MCR's. AND FOURTH. FTFTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTTTUTTON?

Standard of Review: This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial

court's decision on a motion from relief from judgment. People v. Walker(On

Remand), 328 Mich. App. 429, 436; 938 NW 2d 31 (2019). The trial court abuses

its discretion when it makes an error of law or when its decision falls

outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. People v. Duncan,

494 Mich. 713, 722-723; 835 NW 2d 399 (2013). This court reviews de novo

the trial court's interpretation of court rules. People v. Williams. 483

Mich. 226, 231; 769 NW 2d 605 (2009).

Motions for relief from judgment are governed by MCR 6.500 et seq • 9 MCR

6.502(G)(1) provides, in part: Except as provided in subrule (G)(2), one

and only one motion for relief from judgment may be filed with regard to

a conviction. The court shall return without filing any successive motion

for relief from judgment.

Because defendant was acting in "Propria persona." he was entitled to

an even greater degree of lenity and generosity in construing his pleadings

than a lawyer would have been. Estelle v. Gamble. 429 US 97, 106; 97 S.Ct.

285; 50 L Ed 2d (1976).

In Petitioner Collier's case,

the writ of habeas corpus was assigned

to the filing on 7-11-24, the District Commissioner, Brighid Burns sent notice

that the Petitioner was initiating an original action and gave the Oakland

County Prosecutor 28 days to file an answer, to which the prosecutor never

responded.

The Courts never returned to the petitioner the writ of habeas corpus

without filing which is in conformity with rules and language spoken of in

MCR 6.502(G)(2), all courts filed and denied the pleadings citing it as a

successive motion violation, totally ignoring clearly established court rules

l'l:.

[MCR 6.502(D)], nor did the courts send petitioner appropriate form like

court rules state. While section MCL 600.4310(3) prohibits habeas corpus

from serving as a substitute for appeal to review merits of a criminal

conviction,

Habeas Corpus

is

available where

the

convicting

court

was

radically without jurisdiction to try the defendant for crime in question

so that the conviction is absolutely void. People v. Price. 23 Mich. App.

663, 179 N.W. 2d 177, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1907(Mich. Ct. App. 1970). MCL

600.4310(3) gives

petitioner the

right to

review and

ascertain if

the

convicting court was "radically" without jurisdiction to try defendant fer

crime in question.

As stated in People v. Washington. 321 Mich. App. 276, 908 NW 2d 924,

2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1431, and affirmed in Washington. 2021 Mich. LEXIS

1314

2021 WL 320310, a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.502 is

merely procedural vehicle, and our determination that relief from judgment

was unavailable to defendant does not end our inquiry. See also Clement.

254 Mich. App. at 394 (explaining that a court is bound to notice the limits

of its authority and to recognize sua sponte its lack ef jurisdiction.

Regardless of whether the issue was raised in an improperly supported motion,

the trial court clearly had the power to consider the jurisdictional issue

brought to its attention.

Petitioners pleadings were clearly

Petitioner cites United States v. Miller.

titled "Writ

of Habeas

Corpus."

197 F.3d 644, in that case, it

states that the Court of Appeals noted, upon review, that without the benefit

of

a

two-part

oppportunity

to

Adams'

"agree"

notice

or

requirement,

"disagree"

petitioner

that

his

pro

had

neither

the

se

motions

be

recharacterized as a single §2255 motion nor the opportunity to withdraw

the motion rather than have it so recharacterized. Because the district court

IZ

did not give appellant notification of this nature, the court of appeals

set aside the lower court’s decision to recharacterize appellant's two post­

conviction motions, vacated its order of dismissal, and remanded. This Court

should remand in this case as the court did in Miller, the court gave the

prosecutor a set time to file an answer, clearly showing that the court at

this point acknowledged petitioner Collier's pleadings as a writ of habeas

corpus, or,

violating MCR 6.502 subrule (G)(2) by not returning to the

petitioner without filing or give notice that his pleadings were being

recharacterized;

The Courts never respected or adhered to the express legal requirement

to follow clearly established law,

statutes and court rules,

Petitioner

Collier's pleadings were filed in the Courts as a writ of habeas corpus,

but denied as a successive motion when Washington plainly and clearly states

that a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.502 is merely a procedural

vehicle shows that the prosecution has failed to address the substantive

issue in defendant's motion for relief from judgment, which, while brought

pursuant to an inapplicable court rule, nevertheless constitutes an important

and reviewable claim of error.

Pursuant to MCL 600.4310, an action for habeas corpus to inquire into

the cause of detention may not be brought by persons convicted upon legal

process by a court of competent jurisdiction. If a petitioner is confined

under legal criminal process, the proceeding must be dismissed, Petitioner

Collier, however, is confined under an "unauthorized process." In re Stone.

295 Mich. 207, 209j 294 NW 156(1940). There must be a "radical defect" in

the sentencing court's jurisdiction to justify issuance of a writ. Hinton

v. Parole Bd • t 148 Mich. App. 235, 244-245; 383 NW 2d 626(1986).

Habeas proceedings under MCL 600.4310(3) was an appropriate mechanism

to assert a radical defect in the circuit court's jurisdiction

• • t

Moses v.

Dep't of Corr • t 274 Mich. App. Lexis 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

The Petitioner's incarceration is illegal because the trial court and

prosecution violated MCLS § 60Q4310(3) when it failed to issue an affidavit

to support a complaint and warrant on the petitioner before the arraignment,

which makes this case "A Radical Jurisdictional Defect."

Because district court lacked an affidavit, they lacked

jurisdiction

to hold a probable cause hearing, failure to obtain affidavit mandates that

the petitioner be discharged.

The Supreme Court of Kansas was presented with an almost identical case

®nd reasoned that the staute therein involved was mandatory and not merely

directory, and that therefore the failure of the police officer to formally

"swear" rendered the proceedings invalid. Wilcox v. Billings. 200 Kan. 654;

438 P2d 108 (1965). According to the rules and language spoken of in Wilcox

v. Billings,

the proceedings and outcome of the trial must be rendered

invalid.

Petitioner asserts that his Fourth and Sixth Amendment Right to Due

Process were deliberately violated by Oakland County Prosecutors by their

failure to perform their clear legal duty of filing the proper criminal

affidavit, complaint and arrest warrant and failure to hold a proper probable

cause hearing. Therefore, no jurisdiction is attached to any court to try,

convict, and imprison petitioner. Muskrat v. U.S.. 346; 31 Ct. 250; 55 L.

ED 246(1911). In both of petitioner's cases, the prosecutor failed to file

a affidavit, making these cases the product of "Unauthorized Processes."

Habeas relief is warranted in these cases because this ( or any) court is

without jurisdiction, as the current confinement of petitioner is derived

from an unauthorized process.

Consequently, Habeas Corpus relief is warranted in this instant case

to cure this travesty of justice.

Petitioner contends that where the trial court was divested of it's lawful

jurisdiction, it can only order dismissal of petitioner's case, according

to In re Hague. 412 Mich. 532, 544; 315 N.W. 2d 524(1986).

The court must read the affidavit of probable cause submitted in support

of the search warrant in it's entirety and "in a commonsense and nontechnical

manner.” United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 296 (3d Cir. 2000)(citing

United States v. Conley. 4 F.3d 1200, 1206(3d Cir. 1993).

"In making this

determination, the Court confines itself to the facts that were before the

magistrate judge, i.e • * the affidavit, and [does] not consider information

from other portions of the record.” I.d.(quoting Jones. 994 F.2d at 1055).

In Petitioner Collier's case, there was no affidavit filed with the court

to support the complaint and warrant, the complaint and warrant do not state

any alleged acts of the crime committed by petitioner in this case.

For the reasons stated and caselaw and court rules cited herein, this

case should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings, at which time

the lower court vacate and dismiss the conviction with prejudice.

The Trial Court was bound to recognize its jurisdiction or lack thereof,

which means that they were required to make a determination whether an

affidavit was provided at the time of petitioner's arrest as an express legal

requirement and as a corollary, denied petitioner subject-matter jurisdiction

over the claim and whether or not it denied district court subject-matter

jurisdiction and authority to bind petitioner over to circuit court.

15

tslkd <!<&>«. *i

DID THE COURT OF APPEALS BECOME AW

ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE WHEN

THE PROSECUTOR FAILED TO FILE A RESPONSE

TO THE ORDER GIVEN BY THE COURT OF

APPEALS. THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT* £ RIGHTS

TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW.

Standard of Review: A question of law is reviewed de novo. De novo review

applies to questions of subject-natter jurisdiction. De novo requires that

we consider anew, as if no decision had been made previously. THE PROPER

INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF COURT RULES IS A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWED

DE NOVO.

In Petitioner Collier’s case, the Courts gave orders for the prosecutor

to respond to the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus,

the Oakland County

Prosecutor's office never responded.

As stated in People v. Smith, 190 Mich. App. 352, p. 3 of 4, section

II, As a second and alternative basis for reversal, we hold that the failure

of the prosecutor to file a brief or otherwise defend constitutes a confession

of error. We, however, do not establish a per se rule that such failure

constitutes a failure in all cases, Rather, we hold that this court, in the

exercise of its discretion, may deem the failure of an appellee to file a

brief or otherwise defend an appeal to be a confession of error. People v.

Hammond, 187 Mich. App. 105, 107; 466 NW 2d 335(1991).

Though provided ample opportunity, the prosecutor failed to file any

written or other objection to the appeal, any motion to affirm, or any brief

in this case. Further, though noticed of the time and place for oral argument

before this court, no one from the Allegan Prosecutor's office appeared to

orally argue or even notified the Court that it would or would not argue

the same.

In view of the lack of any opposition whatsoever by the Allegan County

Prosecutor, we are led to the inevitable conclusion that the prosecutor.

14#

if he does not by such total inaction or indifference agree with the defendant

that reversible error was committed, at least does not object to reversal

and remand for a new trial which we accordingly do, particularly in view

of the question raised.

In Petitioner Collier’s case, the Courts are ill suited to serve as

an advocate for a prosecutor who chooses not to defend an appeal, in the

present case, the Courts were placed in the uncomfortable position of having

to first act as the prosecutor's advocate, and then render a decision on

the merits. When the court ordered the prosecutor to file a response,

the

prosecutor "must" comply with the order from the court.

On February 26th, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Object and Dismiss

With Prejudice to try and stop the Court from rendering a decision in

violation

of

the

cases,

compiled

laws

et ♦ t

cited

in

this

pleading.

Petitioner's Motion to Object and Dismiss With Prejudice is attached in this

pleading and listed as Appendix "D.”

Despite the fact that this Court in "Walma" placed the prosecutors on

notice that their failure to respond to the defendant's allegations would

be treated as admissions that such allegations were true, this Court has

continued to be plagued with criminal appeals in which the prosecutor has

failed to respond. This, in turn, has placed this Court in the uncomfortable

position of having to first act as the prosecutor's advocate, and then render

a decision on the merits.

Also see People v. Jackson, 178 Mich. App. 62; 443 NW 2d 423 (1989),

it states; While we sympathize with the prosecutor's predicament of case

overload and inadequate staffing, Our Court suffers from a similar plight,

which makes it impossible for us to perform the advocacy duties of the

prosecutor's office. Reversed and Remanded for a new trial before a different

Jucfee.,

i7.

kkui l^ue. *Z

DID MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR

VIOLATE PETITIONER’S FOURTH

CONSTITUTIONAL RTGHT AND EQUAL

PROTECTION OF THE LAW BY SECURING AN ARREST

WARRANT WITH "BARE-BONE" COMPRINT?

Standard of Review: A question of law is reviewed de novo, De novo review

applies to questions of subject-matter jurisdiction. De novo review requires

that we consider a matter anew, as if no decision had been made previously.

THE PROPER INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF COURT RULES IS A QUESTION OF

LAW REVIEWED DE NOVO.

In Petitioner Collier’s case, Lt. Tim Sheridan alleged that petitioner Collier

was arrested solely on a 9-page statement given by Carol Giles, what officers

fail to mention is that after Carol Giles gave this 9-page statement, she

was asked if she could pass a polygraph test to the statement she just gave,

at which time Carol Giles replied "no."

Nowhere in the record does it state to a probable cause hearing being held

prior to the arrest of petitioner Collier, the prosecutor used a complaint

that was not supported by an affidavit, reciting only the statutory language

without the specific facts concerning the alleged crime.

by

the

prosecutor

completely

abandons

the

independent

The process used

probable

cause

determination by a judicial officer.

Police Officers who

secure arrest

warrants from deputy clerks

and

magistrates, suported only with "bare-bone" complaints insufficient to support

an independent probable cause determination violate the Fourth Amendment.

The deputy clerks could not independently find probable cause from the

information submitted in the complaint unaccompanied by an affidavit.

The court must read the affidavit of probable cause submitted in support

of the search warrant in it’s entirety and "in a commonsense and nontechnical

manner." United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 296 (3d Cir. 2000)(citing

United States v. Conley. 4 F. 3d 1200, 1206(3d Cir. 1993).

"In making this

determination, the Court confines itself to the facts that were before the

magistrate judge i.e

♦ »

the affidavit, and [does] not consider information

from other portions of the record." I.d.(quoting Jones, 994 F.2d at 1055).

In Petitioner Collier’s case, there was no affidavit filed with the court

to support the complaint and warrant, the complaint and warrant do not state

any alleged acts of the crime committed hy petitioner in this case. Magistrate

and Prosecutor also violate MCR 6.102 Subrule (B) by not preserving records

from the alleged probable cause hearing before petitioner’s arrest in case

it is later challenged on appeal.

For the information contained herein, Petitioner prays that this Court

find that petitioner has shown entitlement to relief and grant the relief

requested.

.19,

/

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

S' 1-25