COMPLAINT

XXX DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF XXX

XXX,
Plaintiff
vs.
XXX COUNTY PROSECUTOR GLENN PAGE, XXXX, et. al.,
Defendant
Case No. __
Honorable: _

COMPLAINT

  1. COMES NOW Plaintiff ORLANDO PEAY, with this complaint against the Defendants, and alleges as follows:
    PARTIES
  2. Plaintiff , [ENTER NAME], is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  3. Defendant, Prosecutor GLENN PAGE is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  4. Defendant, Prosecutor O’HAIR, is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  5. Defendant, Prosecutor XXXX is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  6. Defendant, XXX, is a Defense Attorney of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  7. Defendant XXXX is a Defense Attorney of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  8. Defendant,XXX, is a Defense Attorney of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  9. Defendant, XXX, is a Defense Attorney of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  10. Defendant, XXXX, is a Defense Attorney of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  11. Defendant, XXX, is a Defense Attorney of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
    JURISDICITON AND VENUE
  12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, on the basis of there being a federal question relating to 42 USC § 1983.
  13. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Plaintiff and/or Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. Plaintiff and/or Defendant lives within the jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, a substantial part of the acts and omissions forming the basis of these claims occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan and arose from the actions or inactions of the Defendants.
    FACTS
  14. Plaintiff was charged on or about [ENTER DATE] at the 36th District Court.
  15. The criminal case was ridden in many violations of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the law.
  16. The recommendation for a warrant of Plaintiff’s arrest was not properly signed. It was also not legible. Besides, the contents of the warrant were not decipherable. The name or practice number (#P) of the arresting officer could not be seen.
  17. During the prosecution of the case, the leading investigating Homicide Officer Barb Simon failed to tum over exculpatory evidence to the Prosecutor. Notably, Officer Simon, fail to disclose the murder weapon photographed on the dining room table, written corroborating investigation report No. Lab No. 0114.lrf but not listed under evidence tag numbers. “Brady material”.
  18. The said murder weapon was NOT LISTED as evidence. Under sworn oath, Evidence Technician Lewis Frances testified that “there was no weapons found, and he did not search up stairs or the basement for weapons”.
  19. Prosecutor O’Hair, filed an appeal on the behalf of the People Of The State Of Michigan. He made one mistake on the cover page in the caption type written, “Lower Court No.96-002083,” with a line drawn through case number, and a hand written correction- 97000120. The hand written correction was then filed in the court by O’Hair, and stamped “received dated Dec 16, 1997.
  20. The same error appeared on the cover page of the brief filed on behalf of the defendant, in the caption with a line drawn through 96-002083, and hand written correction 97000120. Dated RECEIVED Feb 11, 1998, with identical hand writing. It is worth noting that these documents were filed twenty five days apart. Also, it was clear that they were written by the same person that corrected the case nurnber on the cover page.
  21. Prosecutor Atkins, also proceeded with the appeal, by violating Plaintiff’s due process with a fraudulent claim and forged documents. He also failed to notify Defendant of the proceeding, as is has been alleged herein below.
  22. Prosecutor Kim Worthy, transferred the case from Judge Hathaway, to Judge Ryan. A trial was held resulting in a huge Jury. The case was simply walked back to Judge Hathaway’s court room. When asked “how did the case get back to you, your honor she replied, “I got it by blind draw”. Accordingly, Judge Hathaway had a predisposition of evidentiary fact that, “Jude Ziolkowski’s decision to dismiss for inadmissible evidence must stand” based on Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.
  23. Prosecutor Glenn Page and key witness, Homicide Evidence Technician Lewis Frances, falsified documents, and withheld and destroyed evidence, with total disregard for the truth. Notably, Prosecutor Glenn Page stated under oath that “I didn’t search the upstairs; I did not know it had a basement”. This was in fact, not true. Accordingly, Judge Ryan’s trial court resulted in mistrial. This was the third time the Defendants were reissuing the same warrant without new or additional evidence, established in Judge Hathaway’s dismissal.
  24. Prosecutor Kym Worthy, and Director Valerie Newman, violated their duties to promote integrity in the justice system and avoid wrongfully convictions. One of the criteria of investigation is: “MUST I SOLVE THE CASE IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF? No CIU exists to correct conviction of innocent people. A person can get relief even if the true offender is never identified nor prosecuted for the crime”. The written response from the Integrity Unit, dated July 24, 2019, by Valerie Newman stated,
    [t]he only question in the case was the identity of the shooter. If you were not the shooter do you have any idea who shot Clifford Smith? The person who called the police was someone with the same last name as you and told the police she knew you. If you did not shoot and kill Clifford Smith we would need some leads on the person who did in order to investigate the case. If you have any specific information to offer about the identity of the shooter please let us know. Otherwise, we will close out your file.
  25. The letter dated XXXX, corresponding with Valerie Newman’s, stated “[n]o amount of forensic testing can undo the eyewitness accounts putting you at the scene with a shotgun. Your file is now closed in this Unit”.
  26. Assistant Attorney General XXX, represented the treasure department for the State Correctional Reimbursement Act, (SCRA). The reimbursement began the first day in which the sentence started. Notably, Attorney XXX, had a predisposition of evidentiary facts concerning notification of interested parties involved in a civil law suit. During the first civil proceeding Judge David Allen asked:
    Q: “Are there any other interested parties?” When plaintiff Dorice Boyd, said,
    A: “yes your honor, his wife my mother”.
    Prosecutor Kakish’s, response were
    A: “yes, the only information I have is what I got from American Equity’s attorneys”.
    CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
    COUNT 1
    VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
  27. The Defendants used an illegible and/or undecipherable warrant of arrest on the Plaintiff.
  28. Failure to deliver exculpatory evidence to the prosecution, and to consider such evidence in the preparation of prosecution’s case, amounts to a violation of due process rights. See Brady v Maryland, 373, U.S. 83, 87, 83, S. ct. Besides, such failure has also been held to undermine the States credibility to survive the veracity in a probable cause hearing. See Moldowan v City Of Wayne, 578, F. 3d. 351, 378 (6th Cir. 2009).
  29. Accordingly, Officer Simon violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when she failed to disclose pertinent evidence before the Court, such as the murder weapon.
  30. Besides, Evidence Technician Lewis Frances furthered such violation when he testified under oath that no such weapon was found.
  31. Under the law, police officers are not accorded a lower standard. Notably, the courts have previously refused to create an exception for testimony given by police officers. See Rehberg v Paulo 132 s ct. 1497 (2012).
  32. Also, Prosecutor O’Hair, filed an appeal on the behalf of the People of the State of Michigan without proper subject matter jurisdiction. Notably, O’Hair also committed forgery on the appeal brief. See paragraphs 19-20 above.
  33. Prosecutor Atkins, also proceeded with the appeal, violating Plaintiff’s due process with a fraudulent claim and forged documents. He also failed to notify Defendant of the proceeding.
  34. It is trite law that due process requires that a person (1) receive notice of the nature of the proceeding (2) and a meaningful opportunity to be heard (3) before an impartial fact-finder (4) and with a written statement of findings.
  35. It has also been held that the opportunity to be heard must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. And that “although a meaningful opportunity does not require “a full trial-like proceeding … it does require a hearing to allow a party the chance to know and respond to the evidence.” Commmgo v Wayne Co. 210 Mich. App. 249, 253; 533 NW 2d 13 (1995). Besides, docket entry must also reflect a true court proceeding. See The People of the State of Michigan v Orlando Peay. Docket No.205917.
  36. Also, it amounts to a failure to conduct proper notification of a case, when the Prosecutors select a process for the defense attorney. See Attorney Hamzey; “NO LONGER A TY FOR DEF”. Dated 10/15/1997. Attorney Winters; (WRONG ATY SERVED CLAIM). Dated 12/23/1997″.
  37. Five days later, a brief was filed on behalf of the defendant. Both briefs were written by the same person. Notably, the Appellate Court Per Curiam, reversed Judge Hathaway’s decision for the abuse of discretion. See UNPUBLISHED September 22, 1998. Three signatures appear on the cove page, Prosecutor Atkins; Sinutko; and Judge Hathaway.
  38. Prosecutor Glenn Page and key witness, Homicide Evidence Technician Lewis Frances, falsified documents, and withheld and destroyed evidence, with total disregard for the truth. Notably, the said Prosecutor stated under oath that “I didn’t search the upstairs; I did not know it had a basement”. The Prosecutor committed perjury, with clear and convincing evidence in his corroborating photographs and Evidence Technician Investigation Report, 0114.lrf. Accordingly, Judge Ryan’s trial court resulted in mistrial. It is worth noting that Judge Ryan, was not disqualified nor transferred by Chief Judge Worthy. Besides, proper subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. This was the third time the Defendants were reissuing the same warrant without new or additional evidence, established in Judge Hathaway’s dismissal.
  39. Prosecutor Kym Worthy, and Director XXXX, violated their duties to promote integrity in the justice system and avoid wrongfully convictions. They contradicted themselves when they initially concluded that they could not tie Plaintiff to the case. Later on, they allegedly associated Plaintiff to the crime. See paragraphs 24 – 25 above.
  40. The Defendants’ conduct was so arbitrary and capricious that it completely disregarded the salient constitutional safeguards for fair trial.
    COUNT 2
    VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
  41. The presumption of innocence is a central tenant of American criminal law that guarantees fair trial. Accordingly, all accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  42. The U.S. Supreme Court in XXX, 436 U.S. 478 (1978) recognized the presumption of innocence as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.
  43. Defendant Prosecutor Berry B. Siegel, (P41723), exercise power without any reasonable justification, in violation of the presumption of innocence. The said prosecutor adduced an affidavit which stated thus, “homicide files are specifically prepared with reasonable anticipation of apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators of the homicide under investigation.”
  44. In that regard, reliance on such evidence depicts how Defendants already pronounced Plaintiff guilty without subjecting Plaintiff to the court, and presenting a water tight case beyond reasonable doubt against Plaintiff.
    COUNT 3
    VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER COLOUR OF LAW
    42 U.S.C. 1983
  45. Defendant Prosecutor Sinukto (P41723), acting under the color of law, violated Plaintiff’s due process rights, committed fraud, and abused public trust.
  46. Without probable cause, Prosecutor XXX, with the other Defendants, and through their corroboration and deliberate acts, intentionally falsified documents, in reckless disregard for the truth. As prosecuting attorneys, the Defendants were placed under a duty to disclose all material facts before the Court. However, in contradiction to their expectation, the Defendants failed to disclose the forensic analysis of the murder weapon found at the crime scene, and failed to perform and/or consider forensic analysis of gun powder residue from the witnesses’ hands. They also failed to consider any and all evidence found upstairs and at the basement of the crime scene.
  47. On the other hand, Prosecutor XXX, continued prosecution without either valid probable cause or warrant from the District Court before Magistrate Waterston. The case was dismissed on or about December 12, 1996. It is worth noting that in a criminal case, the corpus delicti must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a crime has been committed. It follows; critical evidence such as a death certificate must survive veracity when challenged. See MCL 333.0310. Therefore, a death certificate that lacks a signature of the attending physician or nurse is invalid.
  48. In an attempt to circumvent the Court’s decision to dismiss the aforementioned case on the ground of inadmissible evidence, the Defendants filed another case. It is at this point that the Defendants committed fraud. They unlawfully arrested Plaintiff, changed the case number over and over, without changing the facts. Besides, there were no new circumstances in the subsequent charges. A final decision had been made by the Circuit Court and District Court. Therefore, the Defendants ignored the legal principles of res judicata and stare decisis.
  49. Defendant Prosecutor Robe Stevens brought the same charges before Magistrate Baltimore. Although Magistrate Baltimore had admitted that he could not over turn a Circuit Court judge’s decision, the case was bound over any way. The unlawful bind over resulted in Circuit Court judge XXXX, stating; “I don’t know why this case came to me but Judge XXXX final decision must stand,” and that she would dismiss the case for the same reason Judge Zio1koski dismissed- inadmissible evidence.”
  50. Prosecutor XXXX, further violated Plaintiff’s right not to be subjected twice to the same trial when he transferred the case from Judge XXX, to XXXX. The case was simply walked back to Judge Hathaway’s court room. When asked “how did the case get back to you, your honor she replied, “I got it by blind draw”. Accordingly, Judge Hathaway held a predisposition of evidentiary fact that, “Jude Ziolkowski’s decision to dismiss for inadmissible evidence must stand” based on Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.
  51. Prosecutor XXX, and Director Valerie Newman, violated their duties to promote integrity in the justice system and avoid wrongfully convictions.
  52. Assistant Attorney General XXXX, who represented the SCRA, while acting under the color of law, had a predisposition of evidentiary facts concerning notification of interested parties involved in a civil law suit. See paragraph 26 above. There can is no excuse for an officer of the court, or a government official bound by public trust not to show due diligence. Accordingly, Prosecutor XXXX is expected to review any potential prosecution and charge involving pecuniary interest in the outcome of proceedings that may cause an impartial decision making. See XXX
  53. It is worth noting that the State Correctional Reimbursement Act is based upon the day the MDOC takes custody of the prisoner, and the veracity of the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI). Therefore, a sentence which is based on inaccurate information is invalid. See People v. Wilkins, 121 Mich. App. 813,329 N.W. 2d 500, (Mich. ct. App. 1982).
  54. For emphasis, the first intrinsic evidence required in determining if SCRA can be claimed, is the veracity of the PSI report. The extrinsic evidence written throughout this report, easily identify as incorrect. See Review for error of the PSI report: First page upper right hand corner: “Sentencing date, XXXX”. Contradictory to the “Sentencing Order, dated XXXX. This is very important because the difference between XXX, and XXXX, is the transfer of the annuity from Defendant Orlando Peay, to Carrie Peay, the defendants mother, was expected by American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co. See letter dated XXX and effective Dec 5, 2000. The Defendant was detained at that
    time. See also, Page 6. CURRENT OFFENSE: Error, “date of Arrest 12/14/1996”. “Date of Offense 01/11/2000”. Notably, Defendant was arrested almost five years before the offense.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and he hereby prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants as follows:
i. That the Court orders an evidentiary hearing including but not limited to testimony from record keepers and from other key witnesses, to expand the records.
ii. That the Court orders punitive damages against the Defendants for the suffering inflicted on Plaintiff for the past 25 years, as a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions.
iii. That the Court issues any other order that this institution deems just.

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: __

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ORLANDO PEAY,
Plaintiff
vs.
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR GLENN PAGE, XXXX, et. al.,
Defendant
Case No. __
Honorable: _

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PRE-PAYING FEE OR COSTS
I am the plaintiff in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the cost of these proceedings and that I am entitled to the relief requested. In support of this application, I answer the following questions under the penalty of perjury:
I am currently incarcerated. I am being held in, Oaks Correctional Facility. I have an account in the institution, I have attached to this document a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts, expenditure, and balance during the last twelve months for any institution account in my name.
DECLARATION
Title 28 §1746
I Orlando Peay, solemnly swear that these documents are the truth under the jeopardy and penalty of perjury, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: __
 
XXX DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ORLANDO PEAY,
Plaintiff
vs.
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR GLENN PAGE, XXX, et. al.,
Defendant
Case No. __
Honorable: _
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT

In support of the Complaint, Plaintiff ORLANDO PEAY, makes the following allegations of facts. Plaintiff states that these factual are supported by true copies and certified documents from record keepers such as the Chief Clerks of the courts.

i. MCL 772.2, Complaint examination.
ii. MCL 774.3a, Admissibility of docket as evidence.
iii. MCL 773.6, Record Of Witness Testimony.
iv. MCL 773.5, Inquest, Oath of witness, prosecutor.

  1. The charging documents required to survive the veracity hearing, was insufficient to support arrest warrant violating const1tut1onal rights. See 14th amendment Due process and equal protection. MCR 6 102(8) Probable cause. ·
  2. The Detroit homicide investigation failed to upheld its duty and obligations to both the victim and the accused. See (Exh1b1t 1, homicide investigators). Reports and Crime Scene photos. The Homicide Evidence Technicians are directly part of the Forensic Science Laboratory Agency.
  3. The prosecution and conviction of a suspect rely upon the information acquired through the results found in the investigation in its entirety.
  4. The prosecutor committed fraud upon the court ab initio. See XXX, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993).
  5. The probable causes hearing was based on insufficient investigation. Plaintiff will demonstrate the full disregard for the truth.
  6. Prosecutor committed fraud upon the court deliberately arresting defendant, reissuing a warrant although, the first warrant had been executed and return to magistrate. (Ex. 2, See Return warrant). Circuit Court Judge XXXX, made the final decision to dismiss. (Order, 11/18/1996, for inadmissible evidence).
  7. The United States Constitution 14th Amendment guarantees a fair and proper investigation, and due process. Examination of the homicide investigation shows a full disregard of the duty and responsibility of the forensic science investigator. Obviously, the prosecutor knew there was a shotgun found at the crime scene. Therefore, the failure to preserve, or list as evidence is questionable. This disregard for forensic obligations violated due process. XXX
  8. One of the first documents examined for authentication before taken to a magistrate for probable cause hearing, is the death certificate. If the information therein cannot survive review of its content on veracity, it becomes fraudulent on the court. An Officer of the court, is responsible for the content and authenticity requesting arrest warrants. See clerk of the courts certified documents.
  9. Prosecutor Page, had full knowledge of excessive prosecution. The final decision entered by XXX order hung jury, May 29, 1999. Refer to: CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT. “When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offese that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.”
  10. The three separate arrests by WCPO, ordered by Chief Homicide Officer to change the identity number charge defeedant with murder again, again and again, without any additional evidence nor information. Established during Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Hathaway, dismissal July 18, 1997. “there where no new evidence nor information”. Judge Cynthia Hathaway, made it clear in her dismissal on July 24, 1997, that Circtuit Court Judge XXX decision on November 18, 1996, to dismiss for “inadmissible evidence” must stand. Res judicata, “a thing adjudicated”. Stare decisis, “to stand by things decided”. Clear and convincing evidence remains on the record.
  11. Prosecutor’s office have committed a crime against defendant XXX, by extrinsic fraud. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary: “Deception that is collateral to the issue being considered in the case, Intentional misrepresented or deceptive behavior outside the transaction itself’.
  12. Notably, each arrest began with WCPO, arrest and new identity case number placed upon the record, continued over and over. Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office illegally reissued the same inadmissible evidence. Although bate stamp filing system indicated, previous dismissals had occurred.
  13. Prosecutor O’ Hair, filed an appeal for the People of the State of Michigan v. XXX, representing the state Prosecutor Atkins. The two committed extrinsic fraud. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary: “Depriving appellee of informed consent or full participation” is liable. Review of the docket entry shows the attempts made to find attorney that would represent appellee. After several contacts denying responsibility as attorney, a brief was filed on behave of appellee without any attempts to contact XXX.
  14. Review of the docket entry shows fraud upon the court. Although, Attorney XXXX
  15. What stands out is the hand written correction with a line drawn through typed written number, “Lower Court No. 96-002083. Hand written correction 97000120. The docket entry shows a different story. PROOF OF SERVICE XXX. Cover page: RECEIVED By COURT OF APPEALS: XXX, second stamp received 02/13/1998.
  16. These two briefs filed months apart. There is NO WAY two separate party’s could make the same mistake and be corrected by identical hand written numbers. It appears both briefs was typed by the same person. This amounts to fraud upon the court cornbined with forgery. This violation of public trust and arbitrary deprivation, capricious to the extent it shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense.
  17. Prosecutor’s CIU, created their own criteria and policy’s. The fifth (5th) policy states: “MUST I SOLVE THE CASE IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF”. Prosecutor Valerie Newman, obviously opened the case for review of the emergency 911 call. Through hercorrespondence she writes: “the person who called the police was someone with the same last name as you and told the police she knew you”. That response from prosecutor Valerie Newman, dated XXX, is totally a contradiction of their own criteria and police, fifth policy,”MUST I SOLVE THE CASE”. In the Letter dated XXX, prosecutor Valerie Newman wrote: “The only question in the case was the identity of the shooter. If you were not the shooter do you have any idea who shot Clifford?”. “This Unit tries to determine what happened. Therefore, for our purposes if you did not shoot and kill XXX we would need some leads on the person who did in order to investigate the case. If you have any specific; information to offer about the identity of the shooter, please let us know. Otherwise, we will close out your file”.
  18. Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT. This “INTEGRITY UNIT have created their own criteria and policy, which is a contradiction of integrity. The sixteenth (16) policy “CONFLICTS” states: “The Wayne County Police officer “WCPO”, will detennine issues of disqialification and conflicts of Interest for CIU and WCPO personnel on a case by case basis”.
  19. These non-judicial municipality officers, has been unlawfully invoked circumvented by manipulation of criteria and policys. Policy by Chief Prosecutor Kym Worthy. These policy’s are directly intended to continue the massive injustice that have destroyed the integrity throughout the county.
  20. The Wayne County Police Officers, brought criminal charges, three separate times. Changing the criminal case number, and circumventing due process to a degree it have become a criminal offense. Fraud upon the court severely offensive to the Integrity that if not corrected, it will destroy jurisprudence as we know it in this country. Refer to the CRIMIMAL INTEGRITY UNIT instruction manual”As sated in the American Bar Association standard, Rule 3.8(h)”. Those rule does not include “WCPO Disqualification and conflict of interest” NOT PART OF THE BAR.

SUMMARY

  1. Emergency phone call 911, unidentified caller? Dispatch: two Detroit Police officers, Robert Zahrobsky and Patrica Lofton. Direct testimony By Patrica Lofton, stated
  2. Q: “did you secure the crime scene”?
  3. A_: “_yes I did”. Both officers made written reports, with the same Detroit Receiving Hospital victims chart number #835662628.
  4. They withheld exculpatory evidence. The Evidence Technician Lewis Frances, written report stated: “There were no spent casing being the weapon was a double barrel shotgun”.
  5. Officer Frances photographed the murder weapon on the dinning room table of the crime scene. He wrote about it in his EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN REPORT, page 2, Lab No. 96-0114.lrf. ”The one shotgun cup was collected from the loveseat. EVIDENCE: 242264 1-green shotgun cup.
  6. Although corroborated, the murder weapon was not listed as evidence. In fact during direct testimony Officer Frances, committed perjury, when asked: “did you find any weapons?” He answered: NO”.Also, “did you search the up stairs?” He also answered: “NO”. “Q: did you search the basement for weapons?” He answered: “I didn’t know it had a basement”.
  7. The examination testimony by prosecutors witness XXX, has a six page discrepancy type written by judicial assistant.
  8. Circuit Court Judge XXX, dismissed for “INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE”, Nov 18, 1996. Chief Officer ordered two homicide officers to arrest XXXX, from XXX holding cell, for murder. Magistrate XXX, dismissed for untimely arraignment. Detroit Police was ordered to arrest XXX, for murder. Magistrate Baltimore, admitted “I can not over turn a circuit court judges decision”. Judge Cynthia Hathaway, dismissed July 18, 1997. Page 8, line 10-25.
  9. It was established that “there is no new evidence and Magistrate Baltimore, can not over tum a circuit court judges decision”.
  10. Prosecutor XXX, filed in the court of appeals People of the State of XXX case No .XXX. “Two dditional witnesses testified”. As stated in prosecutor’s brief, page 5 TT2: “At that time the prosecution introduced additional evldence from two previously unheard from witnesses, neighbor Gale Roberson and Pohce Officer XXXX .” Pre XXX. It was based upon the lack of circuit court jurisdiction and there were NO NEW WITNESSES”. The COA decision was therefore invalid.

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: __
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ORLANDO PEAY,
Plaintiff
vs.
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR GLENN PAGE, XXX et. al.,
Defendant
Case No. __
Honorable: _
RULE 4, WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS
I, XXXX, attorney for Defendants in the aforementioned case, have received your request to waiver service of summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.
I XXXX hereby agree to save the expense of serving multiple summons and complaints in this case.
I XXX understand that I will keep all defenses or objections to the complaint, court’s jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I will not waiver any objections that I, or a motion under Rule 12 within 60 days from , the date when this request was sent. If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.
Dated: ______

DANNA NESSEL
 
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, ORLANDO PEAY, certified on this day of __ XXX, in the FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, under title 42 §1983, upon each party through respondents’ representative counsel on every person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to respondent through first class postage prepaid prison delivery system, to the address listed below:

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S Office,
XXX,
XXX
XXX

I further certify that it is my belief and understanding that counsel for respondent, Michigan Attorney General XXX, is a participant in the Court’s ECF program and that separate service of the foregoing document is not required beyond the Notification of Electronic Filing to be forwarded on XXX, upon the filing of the foregoing document.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )