I. WHEN A COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AB INITIO. ARE THE CONVICTIONS/SENTENCES AGAINST MR. WASHINGTON VOID BECAUSE THE ONE-MAN GRAND JURY STATUTES DO NOT AUTHORIZE A JUDGE TO INITIATE CHARGES BY ISSUING INDICTMENTS, WHICH OCCURRED IN MR. WASHINGTON'S CASE? US CONST, AMS V, VI, XIV; MICH. CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 17, 20.

II. DID THE MICHIGAN STATE COURTS CLEARLY ERRED BY NOT GANTING PETITIONER SINGLE ISSUE REGARDING THE ONE-MAN GRAND JURY? WHEN THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURTS RULING IN PEOPLE V PEELER, 509 MICH. 381 (2022) CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INDICTMENT. BY NOT PROVIDING HIM WITH A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO M.C.L.A. 767.4. WHICH IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF HIS FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW? US CONST, AMS VI, XIV: CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §20.

Whether a one-man grand jury lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue an indictment when a judge initiates charges without statutory authorization