Sunday, February 11, 2018

Michigan Peter Lucindo Sucks & The 13th Exception


A fan asked me to take a look at two Michigan House Bills, 4486 and tie barred 4487, so I did.




HB-4486, As Passed House, February 8, 2018


  (8) Child abuse in the fourth degree is A CRIME PUNISHABLE AS

FOLLOWS:

Image result for Peter Lucido
"I need those Bills to pass to fund my
political career!"
     (A) FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, a misdemeanor punishable by

imprisonment for not more than 1 year.

     (B) FOR AN OFFENSE FOLLOWING A PRIOR CONVICTION, A FELONY


     (11) IF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY INTENDS TO SEEK AN ENHANCED

SENTENCE BASED UPON THE DEFENDANT HAVING 1 OR MORE PRIOR

CONVICTIONS, THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SHALL INCLUDE ON THE

A fan asked me to take a look at two Michigan House Bills, 4486 and tie barred 4487, so I did.
COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION A STATEMENT LISTING THE PRIOR CONVICTION


OR CONVICTIONS. THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONVICTION

OR CONVICTIONS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT, WITHOUT A JURY, AT

SENTENCING OR AT A SEPARATE HEARING FOR THAT PURPOSE BEFORE

SENTENCING. THE EXISTENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION MAY BE ESTABLISHED

BY ANY EVIDENCE RELEVANT FOR THAT PURPOSE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, 1 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:

     (A) A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.

     (B) A TRANSCRIPT OF A PRIOR TRIAL, PLEA-TAKING, OR SENTENCING.

     (C) INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A PRESENTENCE REPORT.

     (D) THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT.

     (12) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "PRIOR CONVICTION" MEANS A

VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION OR A VIOLATION OF A LAW OF ANOTHER STATE

SUBSTANTIALLY CORRESPONDING TO THIS SECTION.


I became a bit alarmed at this point because of two items in the language of the Bills.

A "prior conviction", which is so obfuscated with the entire idea of this being a prejudicial assumption that the person was convicted under Michigan's Moral Turpitude Law in child welfare.

I can smell the stench of the imperialistic morality paraders kilometers away, so I go look into the definition of fourth degree child abuse.

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)Act 328 of 1931

750.136b Definitions; child abuse; degrees; penalties; exception; affirmative defense.
(7) A person is guilty of child abuse in the fourth degree if any of the following apply:
     (a) The person's omission or reckless act causes physical harm to a child.
     (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, regardless of whether physical harm results. 
(8) Child abuse in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year.

This is a more intuitive understanding of fourth degree child abuse conviction from a Michigan law firm:
Fourth-degree child abuseA parent or guardian who willfully fails to provide a child's basic needs (food, shelter, clothing), who abandons a child, or commits a reckless act which results in some physical harm to a child may be charged with fourth-degree child abuse.
"Failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child" is falls under multple types of abuses contained within federal law such as ecomonic abuse, environmental abuse, moral abuse, lack of medical care, having been reliant upon the state to protect the best interests of the child.

Poverty is the crime of failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child, having then to default on the grant of custody and guardianship from the state, triggering the penal conviction which produces a judicial determination which is needed to open the federal funding spigot in Medicaid, Title IV-B and E.

Tah dah!

Poverty is a crime because the state can make more money off the kid through federal funding schemes in fraudulent billing of privatized NGOs.

In furtherance to the fact that poverty has been codified as the crime of child abuse, these "prior convictions" are not criminal, which means there is no due process, allowing the court to hold secret administrative, closed door, tribunals to determine how long the next decree of conviction shall be for still hailing from the targeted population of "The Poors".

But, before I assign my favorite, most endearing sobriquet upon the Michigan law maker who introduced this bill, I thought I would be a bit iterative and do a few deep dives just to make sure I was parsimonious with my convictions, so I found this:

Lawmaker wants no repeat of Sanilac County rapist and child custody case

LANSING — A mid-Michigan lawmaker wants to make sure the controversial case of a man getting and then losing custody of the child that was conceived when he raped a 12-year old never happens again.

State Rep. Pam Faris, D-Clio, introduced a bill last week that would prohibit people who are convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct from getting custody of a child that is the product of an assault.

The bill came about after a Sanilac County judge gave twice-convicted rapist, Christopher Mirasolo joint custody of an 8-year-old boy he fathered with a 12-year-old girl in 2008.

The order, which came about because the mother was looking for child support from the father, caused an uproar in the community and caused the judge, who wasn't aware of the rape conviction when he signed the order, to reexamine the case and rescind his order.


Even though the case has been resolved and the mother will continue with sole legal custody of the child, Faris said, she doesn't want the same thing to happen to anyone else.

"This particular case fell through a lot of holes in a lot of different systems and ended up being a nightmare for this young lady and her family," Faris said. "We really don't want rapists who plead down to a lesser crime to have custody or visitation. This bill is for victims in the future. Everyone has seen the error of their ways in this case, but this woman has gone through three weeks of hell."

I see what is going on here.

This was one of those NGO opportunistic over night think tank of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) who came up with a way to make some money from a tragedy, using kids, so I did another deep dive.

House Bill No. 5115

October 17, 2017, Introduced by Reps. Lucido, Marino, Canfield, Webber, Lasinski, Frederick, Chirkun, Bizon, LaGrand, Moss, Brinks, Camilleri, Wittenberg, Chang, Ellison, Green, Sabo, Liberati, Sneller, Sowerby, Pagan, Faris, Byrd, Yaroch, Scott, Hammoud, Geiss, Elder, Greimel, Zemke, Hertel, Yanez, Jones, Rabhi and Robinson and referred to the Committee on Insurance.

 SEC. 3107C. A PHYSICIAN, HOSPITAL, CLINIC, OR OTHER MEDICAL

INSTITUTION, OR OTHER PERSON, THAT PROVIDES A PRODUCT, SERVICE, OR

ACCOMMODATION FOR AN INJURED PERSON'S CARE, RECOVERY, OR

REHABILITATION IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF PERSONAL PROTECTION

INSURANCE BENEFITS UNDER THIS CHAPTER ON BEHALF OF THE INJURED

PERSON.

It was at this moment I saw the model begin to emerge from the propaganda.

By enriching law to terminate parental rights, the state can then directly receive funding for providing for the best interests of the child through Medicaid, and then securing life insurance of the child under the aegis of the state to "cash in" at the most opportune attrition, whether by death, AWOL, or age out, all in the best interests of the child.

What a great way to invest in children for a profitable return in social impact bonds!

I bet that Medicaid money will be going through the Michigan Children's Trust Fund.


"I wonder what Michigan does with all that money considering the Trust Fund 
is under the purview of the State Auditor right about now."

I have always wondered if these NGO Public Private Partnerships take out multiple life insurance policies and annuities on kids.


EmancipationDid you know that mechanisms I have identified for poverty being a crime and the right of the state issue such penal conviction through ex parte hearings, without opportunity of facing one's accuser, being tried as guilty until proven innocent, through administrative determination, is all legal and is something I like to call the 13th Exception.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".

Then there is the second part of the 13 Exception:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Welcome to the world of UCC1, foreign nationals, shell companies and off shore accounts in child welfare.

If the principal agent, who is typically an attorney, is representing a client who has incorporated as a foreign entity through states like Delaware, actually contracting within the States, representing foreign national private investments originating from Israel, (oops, did I just say that?) or a structured NGO which just so happens to be a private contractor of child welfare services in Michigan, or, in some instances, a State agency which has filed UCC1 under the jurisdiction of international law, re-written for more privatization, there is nothing unethical nor illegal with criminalizing poverty, then of stealin' kids to make money, because indentured servitude, where the child can be emancipated at 16 or age out at 18 - 25 years of age. and slavery has nothing to do with the color of one's skin.

Ok, now you can take a breather.  That was a long one!  You should really see me do it as a stand up castigation routine.

The 13th Amendment is where the principal-agent theories warehoused under employment law, based upon law of chattels, or rather property law, including intellectual properties is all about who is the proper possessor of the "best interests" of think about that.

There are no appeals as the child abuse conviction proceedings have no parallel jurisprudence and one is placed on the State's Central Registry of Abuse before even being served with a court date because there are no indictments.

Child welfare convictions make "duly convicted" a judicial determination made behind a closed, administrative doors of the Public Private Partnerships.

Membership into the highly, non-exclusive club called "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) is an act of civility, in a christian nation.

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. Leviticus 25:44-46.

FINDINGS:  Peter Lucindo sucks and this is nothing but a real time construction for poor kids to be legally kidnapped and launch of another multi-billion dollar fraud scheme using the 13th Exception.


CHILD ABUSE: ENHANCED SENTENCE WITH
PRIOR CONVICTION
House Bill 4487 reported from committee as substitute H-2
Sponsor:  Rep. Peter J. Lucido
Committee:  Law and Justice
Complete to 12-28-17
BRIEF SUMMARY:  House Bill 4486 would amend the Michigan Penal Code to create enhanced penalties for second-, third-, or fourth-degree child abuse when the individual convicted of that crime has a prior conviction for child abuse in any degree. House Bill 4487 would place the new penalties within the sentencing guidelines. The bills would take effect 90 days after enactment.
FISCAL IMPACT:  House Bill 4486 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on state and local units of government (see Fiscal Information, below, for a more detailed discussion).
THE APPARENT PROBLEM:
Currently, except for repeat second-degree child abuse violations, no matter how many times the same person commits an act constituting child abuse, the same penalty applies. Some feel, however, that if a person commits a second act, or a third, or more, the subsequent convictions should carry a higher penalty. One incident, they reason, may be an unfortunate mistake or may lead to a person’s getting help for a problem that played a part in the wrongdoing. But when the same person either deliberately hurts a child again or continues to engage in conduct that puts a child at risk of harm, he or she should face a harsher criminal sentence.

THE CONTENT OF THE BILL:
Under current law, a person is guilty of second-degree child abuse if the person’s omission or reckless act causes serious physical or mental harm to a child; if the person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that is cruel to a child or that is likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child, regardless of whether harm results; or if the person intentionally violates a licensing rule for family and group child care homes under Public Act 116 of 1973 and the violation causes the death of a child. A violation is a felony punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment for a first offense and up to 20 years’ imprisonment for a second or subsequent offense.
A person is guilty of third-degree child abuse if the person knowingly or intentionally causes physical harm to a child or knowingly or intentionally commits an act that poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child and that results in physical harm to a child. A violation is a felony punishable by up to 2 years’ imprisonment. 
A person is guilty of fourth-degree child abuse if the person’s omission or reckless act causes physical harm to a child or the person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, regardless of whether physical harm results. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year’s imprisonment.
House Bill 4486 would increase the sentence that can be imposed for second-, third-, or fourth-degree child abuse if the person convicted for that crime has a prior conviction. Under the bill, “prior conviction” would mean a violation of the child abuse law (i.e., child abuse in any degree) or violation of a law of another state that substantially corresponds to the child abuse law. (The penalty for first-degree child abuse is not increased for repeat offenders under the bill because it is currently life or any term of years.)
Under the bill, second-degree child abuse with a prior conviction for child abuse in any degree would be a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 20 years; third-degree child abuse with a prior conviction would be a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years; and fourth-degree child abuse with a prior conviction would be a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years. The bill would not change the penalty for a first violation of any of these crimes.
The bill would require a prosecutor seeking an enhanced sentence for a defendant who has 1 or more prior convictions to include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The court would determine, without a jury, the existence of the defendant’s prior conviction or convictions either at sentencing or at a separate hearing before sentencing. The court would base its determination on any relevant evidence, which could include a copy of the judgment of conviction; a transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing; information contained in a presentence report; or the defendant’s statement.
MCL 750.136b
House Bill 4487 would place the new felony penalties for third- and fourth-degree child abuse with a prior conviction within the sentencing guidelines portion of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bill also specifies that the current penalty for repeat second-degree child abuse offenses would apply to second-degree child abuse with any prior conviction, and that the current penalty for third-degree child abuse would apply only to a first offense.
HB 4487 is tie-barred to House Bill 4486, meaning that it cannot take effect unless House Bill 4486 is also enacted.
MCL 777.16g
FISCAL INFORMATION:
House Bill 4486 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on state and local correctional systems and on local courts. The number of people who would be convicted under provisions of the bill is unknown. The bill would likely decrease misdemeanor convictions and increase felony convictions as violations of fourth-degree child abuse shift from misdemeanors to felonies when there is a prior conviction. The bill could also result in increased sentences for second-degree and third-degree child abuse with a prior conviction.
Felony convictions would result in increased costs related to state prisons and state probation supervision. In fiscal year 2016, the average cost of prison incarceration in a state facility was roughly $36,000 per prisoner, a figure that includes various fixed administrative and operational costs. State costs for parole and felony probation supervision averaged about $3,500 per supervised offender in the same year. 
By comparison, misdemeanor convictions increase costs related to county jails and/or local misdemeanor probation supervision. The costs of local incarceration in a county jail and local misdemeanor probation supervision vary by jurisdiction. The fiscal impact on local courts would depend on how provisions of the bill affected caseloads and related administrative costs. 
House Bill 4487 amends sentencing guidelines and would not have a direct fiscal impact on the state or on local units of government. 
ARGUMENTS:
For:
Sometimes a person does a bad thing only once.  Through counseling, education, maturity, or even serving a criminal penalty, many are rehabilitated and never do that or any other bad thing again. For some crimes, especially ones that result or could result in serious injury to another person, a more stringent penalty for repeat offenses can distinguish between someone who made a mistake and someone who poses an ongoing danger to others. Some feel that the criminal penalty should be harsher for a person who commits child abuse after being convicted of the crime previously. House Bill 4486 would do just that. A prosecutor would still retain discretion over which charges to bring and judges, under the guidance of the sentencing guidelines, would retain discretion over an appropriate sentence.
Against:
No arguments were offered in opposition to the bill.
POSITIONS:
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM) indicated support for the bills on 10-24-17 and 10-31-17.
                                                                                        Legislative Analysts:   Rick Yuille
                                                                                                                           Susan Stutzky
                                                                                                 Fiscal Analyst:   Robin Risko

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
Post a Comment