Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Demand/ request to re-open case and dismiss for absence of factual basis for plea.

To the prosecutor: At the venue designated in the above caption I will ask the court to dismiss this case nunc pro tunc. I was sleeping at the time of the alleged offense. The crime prescribes a specific mental state. I did not and could not have had that mental state. Ineffective assistance of counsel prevented me from discovering this legal mistake. I am mentally disabled.

Ron pleaded to “attempted criminal sexual conduct”. This is ludicrous because the missing element of the crime is intent. The plea indicates an attempt with a completed act; in fact the facts point to an act of a sleeping person with no intent.

On 1 July 1999 a Judge whose name is illegible signed an Order of Discharge discharging Ron Fox from his 2 year probation.

The finding of guilt was not set aside - because the form did not present that option for this crime. The form did however say “Defendant is discharged from . . . Any unfulfilled obligations of condition of the sentence imposed by this court. . .” See Exhibit #1, page 1 of the court record.

Note: I have numbered the pages from the top. Page 220 is the last page of my copy of the court record. Page 220 is the first paper inserted into the court file; page 220 is at the bottom of the stack.

I thought my obligation to register was discharged. That’s what the paper says.

Years later Ron was arrested for failure to re-register as a sex offender. If this obligation to register was imposed by the court, then it is terminated.

Sex Registration cases have never gone before the U.S. Supreme Court. A similar statute, that sentencing statute in the Bradley case, has gone before the court.

Nobody warned Ron. Conversely, they defrauded him by telling him in writing that his obligations would be terminated after 2 years. The registration law was already in effect at the time of Ron’s sentencing and also 2 years later at the time of his discharge from his obligations imposed by his terms of probation. It the judge intended to discharge the obligation to re-register then the legislature has unconstitutionally invaded the province of the sentencing judge - as it did in Bradley. If the judge did not intend to discharge the re-registration requirements then the court had an obligation to so inform defendant Ron before he pled guilty. Failure to inform Ron vitiates Ron’s plea.

If it is imposed by the legislature then it has the same status as the mandatory sentencing guidelines that were found to be unconstitutional in the Bradley case just this year. Also, a law is unconstitutional if is imposes a penal burden without benefit of the insulation of a judge and jury. Such a law is a bill of pains and penalties.

Ron Fox is a gregarious, upbeat, friendly, cheerful, hard-working, loyal, helpful, courageous, kind human being. He could be a boy scout. You won’t find anybody who will say a bad thing about Ron Fox except for emotional hysterical people who have read the lies about him on the sex offender registry. In view of the fact that Michigan’s unconstitutional sex registry lumps all persons in one class (and gives no information about the alleged offense) people in Ron’s neighborhood don’t know if he is a weenie wagger or a serial rapist. Megan’s law is a good example of the cliche that says “Hard cases make bad law”. The pendulum has reversed; Megan’s laws are being repealed and weakened. Michigan’s version of Megan’s law was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Judge Victoria Roberts. The federal court of appeals reinstated the unconstitutional law in a case factually distinguishable from Ron’s. In Arizona the defective law resulted in an unlawful eviction and lawsuit against the city of Tempe in the case of Jennifer Simmer. Her boyfriend from Michigan was registered for an act that is no longer a crime in Michigan. Arizona classifies sex offenders. The boyfriend, like Ron, was accused of the least serious offense - but Michigan lumps all accused offenders into one group and does not release facts about the case. Tempe’s law required that if no information or classification is available, the registrant shall be grouped into the mid range. Michigan’s bad causes injury and grief throughout the United States.

We need not argue the merits of the law; Ron is factually innocent of the underlying crime and is otherwise not subject to the law. “Otherwise” means that his underlying plea agreement specifically mentioned registration and said that all burdens and penalties would be terminated upon completion of the 2 year probation. Ron served 1 day in jail for the misdemeanor even though he was then and is now innocent. We need not rely on the theory of reneging on the plea agreement. Ron is factually innocent. The 220 page court record from Saint Ignace, recently obtained, supports his factual innocence.

Ron Fox is innocent of the underlying alleged misdemeanor that is the reason for his having been posted in the sex offender registry.

Ron Fox suffered 3 head injuries during his life. His head was run over by a car not once but twice in two separate incidents during his childhood. Then in his early adulthood he fell through a staircase landing on his head. Although Ron accommodates marvelously, testing reveals an IQ of 79 in some areas of complicated logic. Ron did not know that there is a specific mental state required for the misdemeanor of which he was falsely accused. Ron’s lawyers did not know. The judge who took his plea did not know. Nobody told Ron about this mental state. Nobody took the time to inquire. Ron is accused of the weakest act of “Criminal Sexual Conduct”. An element of Criminal Sexual Conduct is “Sexual contact”. “Sexual contact” is specifically specified in the statute and is defined in a earlier nearby section as follows:

(n) “Sexual contact” includes the intentional touching of the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner for:

In Ron’s case he was sleeping when he committed the alleged act. That much is undisputed.

In early February 1995 Ron Fox, a married man, drove 4 hours to the home of his brother Rick Beaver. (Although the record does not say, the event seems to have been the funeral of Ron’s Grandmother.) Ron had previously changed his name to avoid association with his siblings who were all older than Ron and who had molested the injured/ disabled youngest sibling Ron as a child. As the youngest, Ron grew accustomed to his role as a scapegoat. True to form, Ron accepted his scapegoat role in 3 cases:

1. In the instant case Ron entered a false plea of guilty in order to relieve the prosecution of its burden.

2. In the traffic case Ron entered a false plea of guilty while being held in jail until he agreed to plea guilty. He had been ordered imprisoned by an angry judge Alston at the request of antagonistic disloyal attorney Jennifer Barnes. After the test they illegally held Ron for 90 days - until he pleaded guilty in order to escape from jail. This plea was coerced by false imprisonment. The alleged crime was fleeing and eluding, but, once again Ron suffered incompetent appointed counsel. Nobody told Ron that eluding requires some act such as acceleration, taking a side road, or some other act of elusion. Ron had simply continued his journey home, less than 1 mile away.

3. In the underlying case back in 1995 - 1997 Ron ultimately pleaded guilty in order to resolve the case which dragged on for 2.5 years. Ron’s plea there was not an informed plea. He knew that he was asleep but nobody ever told him that sleep precluded the requisite mental state.

Ron stayed overnight at his brother’s house on February 5, 1995. As has been the custom for Americans for generations, a child gave up a bed for an adult. In this case Ron’s 8 year old niece traded bedrooms with her older brother. Ron and his nephew slept in the niece’s bedroom. The niece slept in her brother’s bedroom.

The niece later jumped into bed between Ron and his nephew. The niece slept with her head at the foot of the bed - as is the custom when there are too many people in one bed. As to the reason for the niece jumping in to the bed, there are conflicting reasons presented. The niece changed her story to one that relieves her parents of responsibility. One unbelievable story of the niece is that she went to the bathroom and inadvertently went back to her own bedroom that she had traded away for the night. This sounds like a story concocted with mom’s help. The other story is that she asked her mom if she could sleep with “Uncle Ronnie”. Her parents were smoking marijuana at the time and mom said yes.

Approximately 3.5 months later, the mom (Ron’s brother’s wife) filed a police report saying that Ron’s niece said that Ron had touched the outside of her panties with his hand in her pubic area. Ron’s brother called Ron. Ron mentioned it to his wife, Gail. She exclaimed “Ron, that’s what you do to me in your sleep!” Ron had no way of knowing that “sleeping aint molesting”. Nobody ever told him about mens re! Apparently his lawyer and the judge never gave it a thought.

Within the week Ron voluntarily drove the 4 hours back to St. Ignace and told the police what happened. Ron thought that touching in his sleep was a crime and nobody told him otherwise. Ron did not remember having touched the girl; he was sleeping.

On June 22, 1995, nearly 4.5 months after the date of the alleged crime a police officer signed a complaint against Ron.

The case dragged on for over 2 years. Ron went through several lawyers, several prosecutor, and several judges.

Ron pleaded guilty on the written condition that all burdens of probation, including the sex offender registration, would be removed upon successful completion of 2 years misdemeanor probation.

Then, years later, Ron’s neighbors found his picture on the internet at the sex registry site. The neighbors stood in front of Ron’s house and called him a pervert. Office Aldrich came to Ron’s house 20 times to harass him. Ron’s wife and child moved away.

Then Aldrich falsely accused Ron of “fleeing and eluding”. Aldrich broke the windows out of Ron’s van and smashed Ron’s face in the broken glass on the ground. Ron sued in federal court.

Early in 2004 Ron began his effort to obtain his file from St. Ignace. He succeeded. He mailed the file to Attorney Douglas Palaschak in late October. Palaschak picked up the record at the post office on the day before Thanksgiving and read it straight through. This reading took 12 consecutive hours. Palaschak wrote report #6589 to Ron. Ron showed it to his lawyer who did nothing about it.

I have been a licensed lawyer since 1984. I specialize in Constitutional Law, Sex cases, and Drug cases.

Ron struggled to obtain a copy of his file from the underlying sex case in Saint Ignace.

Ron sent that file to me a month ago. It sat at the post office around 2 weeks until I got my mail on the day before Thanksgiving.

I wrote an analysis #6589 explaining that an element of the crime is missing: mental state!

“Sexual conduct” requires a specific mental state. Four are specified in the statute which I copied in 6589.

I have begun to prepare papers to file in St. Ignace to vacate the conviction - which should have been done upon completion of Ron’s probation - and was done - sorta. Ron was specifically told in writing that the sex registry reporting would end with his probation. Ron is mentally disabled. He cannot understand how the state makes a deal in writing and then reneges. He was denied effective assistance. The file shows clearly that he was sleeping and therefore could not have had the specific intent of lust, anger, revenge, or humiliation.

The sentencing should be postponed and the plea withdrawn. This bad lawyering must stop!

I am innocent. Nobody told me the elements of the crime. I was sleeping. I don’t remember doing it. Until that happened I did not know that I do that in my sleep. My wife Gail told me that I do that in my sleep sometimes.

I need time to work this case. Finally I got my files from St. Ignace. Finally Palaschak received them. He read them. He says that I am innocent. I need to undo all the wrongs that have been done to me. Please vacate this sentencing date. I want to withdraw my plea in this case and I want to vacate my plea in the 1995 case.

I, (print your name) ________________ , declare the following under penalty of perjury: On (date) ___________ I served this motion #6655 upon the prosecutor’s office as follows. Thereafter I filed it at the criminal filing window as follows.

1. Page 1 of the 220 page record. Petition and Order for Discharge from Probation.

2. Pages 32, 33, and 34 of the Preliminary Examination which was held on September 26, 1995. This is where Defense Attorney Rasor said that there is “not an inkling . . . of evidence” of intent. The judge based intent upon Ron’s having voluntarily come to the police station. That will not stand! The judge said that Ron’s admission implies consciousness of guilt, but the judge is way wrong. There was no consciousness of guilt during the 4 months before the alleged crime was reported. Ron’s motive was altruism. Ron’s said that he must have done it. He did not remember doing it. Furthermore, merely intending to touch the panties is not enough. There are 4 mental states prescribed in the statute. Nobody pointed to any one of them and nobody proved any requisite mental state.