(If one dares call it that)

 Mr. Deering balanced all his time caring for his son and writing petition after petition to the courts in order to have the Void Conviction Memorialized as such and Vacated. He had hoped the California Courts would recognize that the degenerate troupe from the State of Michigan did not and never could establish jurisdiction. From the California Superior Court upward the judges would not hear the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Only judges Kennard and Werdegar of the California Supreme Court actually considered the Substantive Arguments in the Petition and would have granted it. What has our country come to when only two of our jurists will fulfill their solemn duty and protect our most fundamental Constitutional rights?

While Mr. Deering was in California pursuing legal remedies per the Plea Agreement, Rudy Nichols continued his flagrant usurpation of the court and on March 31, 2006 issued a Bench Warrant for Mr. Deering’s Arrest.  Was it possible that Judge Nichols (Mr. Co-Prosecutor) didn’t know Mr. Deering was lawfully in California pursuing legal remedies? It is conclusively apparent from the court record that he knew, as: 1) Nichols openly admitted that the matter (issuing a Bench Warrant) was “not properly before [him];” 2) Public Defender Shanahan informed Nichols that Mr. Deering was properly in California; and, 3)  Nichols stated further on the record: “I need a moving party to ask for a bench warrant. . . . we just won’t take any action.” And what did Mr. Co-Prosecutor Nichols do when he didn’t have a moving party? Off the Record, in the back room, in a transparent attempt to hide his usurpation of office, on the very same day he had indicated he had no authority to issue a Bench Warrant, he did! So much for judicial neutrality, restraint, due process, and Constitutional separation of powers; not to mention Rudy Nichols’ solemn oath of office.

On April 18, 2006 Mr. Co-Prosecutor Rudy Nichols received a fax from Mr. Deering requesting the unlawful Bench Warrant be withdrawn. But it wasn’t until May 22, 2006 in a transparent attempt to save face Mr. Co-Prosecutor Rudy Nichols Set Aside his Bench Warrant posturing it was a “clerical error.” Clerical error or pathetic lie? If it wasn’t such a disgraceful and brazen abuse of public office, it would be comical.

After exhausting State Remedies in California Mr. Deering submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in State Custody under 22 USC 2254 in the Federal District Court Los Angeles.  But the six months was running out, and with A.A.G. Wood and Co-Prosecutor Nichols chomping at the bit to have Mr. Deering renditioned again, he had to make a very difficult decision; does he stay and be arrested again without hope of effective legal representation or leave the country where he could carry on the fight with access to legal research and writing tools? The Federal Court procedure is to prioritize and adjudicate submissions of the Great Writ. If he left, then at least he would be able to be in contact with his son via Skype calls. And if he was to be gone for an extended period of time then his son was to be sent to him over the holidays and summer vacations until the Void Conviction was Vacated. With multiple citizenships Mr. Deering left for the safety of Europe and there remains living in exile.

After four months of waiting the Federal District Court in Los Angeles California transferred his case to the Michigan Eastern District Court in Detroit without adjudicating the questions.

The delays flowing from procedure over substantive issues had deepened. Further delays occurred when the Michigan Department of Corrections falsely listed Mr. Deering as an absconder and the Fed District Court in Detroit (where the Petition had been transfered) Dismissed the Petition for Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice because of it. Another four months of waiting for nothing. Justice delayed is truly justice denied.

Others similarly situated, including Charles Hamilton, Joe Jurecki, Randall Scotti, and Rick Welch also filed Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus only to be denied a hearing. Their arguments that MCL 750.165 is unconstitutional as a Debtor’s Prison scheme, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, and Excessive Bail were never even considered.

A second Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in the Federal District Court in Michigan with legal representation. The abuses of discretion, and the placing of procedure over substantive due process, seemed to have come to an end when Magistrate R. Steven Whalen of the Federal District Court of Detroit Michigan Ruled that the Petition was not subject to Summary Dismissal and Ordered Responsive Pleading. Once again, however, it was Dismissed Without Prejudice citing the falsified absconder status.  We must all ask the question; when will the depravity of State Judicial and Executive usurpers finally be terminated? Who is next?

A little boy, Mr. Deering’s son, lives without the father that raised him on his own during his most formative years. On most occasions when Mr. Deering  was able to reach his son he begged for him to come home. Fully aware of his suffering, James Long, Mitch Wood, and Rudy Nichols heartlessly allow their Void Conviction to stand and Mr. Deering is unable to return to his son. Who will bring this depravity to an end? Will the current Attorney General, Bill Schuette, allow his out of control employees to continue their lawless actions?

The Attorney Grievance Commission refused to investigate let alone proceed with the revocation of James Long & Mitch Wood’s license to practice law in Michigan.

The  Judicial Tenure Commission should investigate Rudy Nichols with the recommendation that his license to practice law be revoked. The U.S. Supreme Court has unambiguously and repeatedly ruled that exercising judicial power without jurisdiction is treason, plain and simple.

Will the Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, intervene? Will he support changes to our laws such that We The People have a more direct say in who is allowed to continue in their public service? Should a Citizens Grand Jury exercise oversight into which complaints before the Attorney Grievance Commission and Judicial Tenure Commission are prosecuted? Our founding fathers knew that part of the eternal vigilance required to protect our Republic was a grand jury with broad powers to oversee the actions of Our public servants. This is part of America’s rich heritage and memorialized in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. This now watered down power of oversight needs to be reinvigorated as Mr. Deering’s case exemplifies.

Your participation and support makes a difference and is deeply appreciated. Add your voice to see our public servants held accountable to the law, and demand change by signing the Petition for Intervention & Reform.