Bill Windsor Criminal Trial is a Travesty - INjustice

 missoula-county-courthouse-snow-ct-young-cropped-travesty-200w

Bill Windsor's Criminal Trial is a Travesty - INjustice.

Rarely given much opportunity to speak at hearings, Bill has been keeping a running tab of the wrongdoing in his case.

Concerned that Judge James A. Haynes may deny him the opportunity to raise these objections at trial, Bill Windsor has filed his laundry list of objections to the INjustice....

Gee, there are only 113 items on the list.  You will see all types of wrongdoing here.  Violations of due process out the wazoo.  Prejudice that cannot be described in mere words.  Outrageously bogus criminal charges.  Lies.  Allowing an armed would-be killer in the courthouse and courtroom.  Denying Bill Windsor's motions without discussion or explanation.  Blocking the filing of Bill Windsor's motions.  Citing bogus statutes and case law to try to justify a wrongful order.  Denying Bill Windsor the right to present his defenses.  And on and on....  Constitutional rights are just words on a page that mean nothing to Judge James A. Haynes when he is out to get you. 

This was sent to the Clerk of the Court for filing:

William M. Windsor (“Windsor”) files these Objections pursuant to Montana Code Annotated (“MCA”) 46-13-101(2).

  1. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has committed many violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct in this proceeding.
  2. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes did not recuse himself as he is clearly biased against Windsor personally and as a pro se defendant.
  3. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes is allowing Windsor to be prosecuted on charges that are clearly unconstitutional.
  4. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has arbitrarily set 11 hours for the trial.
  5. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes is denying Windsor the right to present his defenses.
  6. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes was handpicked to handle this case because of his prejudice against Windsor.
  7. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has interfered with the filing of Windsor’s documents.
  8. Windsor objects that he was denied the opportunity to present and argue his motions.
  9. Windsor objects that he is being denied a fair trial. .
  10. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has had ex parte communications with the Prosecuting Attorney and others.
  11. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has indicated the alleged violations are from an overbroad Temporary Order of Protection, yet Judge James A. Haynes has failed to dismiss the charges.
  12. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has allowed the State to pursue malicious prosecution.
  13. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has allowed the State to pursue selective prosecution.
  14. Windsor objects that he was not given adequate notice of hearings and thus denied due process.
  15. Windsor objects that Windsor was denied access to a law library, his records, and other essential tools while incarcerated for 134 days.
  16. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes denied his Motion for Constitutional Rights without justification and without findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  17. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes denied his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without justification and without findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  18. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has falsely accused him of concealing information, not following orders, having a reading problem, having a hearing problem, and other such improper and false claims.
  19. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has ignored one of the most universally-recognized Constitutional protections in allowing these charges against Windsor – due process, notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to deprivation of liberty and/or property.
  20. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has denied his motions on false grounds.
  21. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes instructed Windsor to read and follow the Uniform District Court Rules and the Local Rules, but said the rules didn’t matter when the State failed to follow them.
  22. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes, the court clerks, Sheriff’s Department and Jail have grossly violated Windsor’s legal rights, Constitutional rights, rights to a fair trial, rights to due process, and rights to equal protection.
  23. Windsor objects that Windsor has had no response to his written requests for recordings and transcripts from each hearing.
  24. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes is proceeding without jurisdiction due to the failure of the charging document to state an offense, a nonwaivable defect, that MCA 46-13-101(3) says must be noticed by Judge James A. Haynes at any time during the pendency of a proceeding.
  25. Windsor objects that on December 2, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes denied defenses raised in the March 2015 Omnibus Memorandum pursuant to MCA 46-13-110.
  26. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to dismiss the charges pursuant to MCA 46-13-401.  
  27. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has not dismissed the charges due to the failure to bring Windsor to trial within six months.
  28. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has not dismissed Count #1 due to expiration of the statute of limitations.
  29. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes allowed the Information to be amended pursuant to MCA 46-11-205, but the motion was not accompanied by an affidavit stating facts that show the existence of probable cause to support the charge as amended.
  30. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes is proceeding under mistakes of law that cause a gross injustice.
  31. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that MCA 40-15-201 and the EX-PARTE-TOP are void on their face for vagueness. 
  32. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that it is unconstitutional to order him as a Respondent to transfer his personal property to Petitioner Sean Boushie who had no ownership interest in the property, without a hearing, without compensation for the property, and without clarifying how the transfer was to take place, in an ex parte TOP.
  33. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that it is unconstitutionalforthe EX-PARTE-TOP to restrain his access to 1,700 individuals, describing them only as “U of M Staff,” particularly where none of the individuals in question petitioned the court for a TOP and there was no limitation on the type of contact.
  34. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to dismiss Count #2 because Title 40 Chapter 15 provides an option for legal mail that Claudia Denker-Eccles did not choose to use.
  35. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to dismiss Count #2 because it was a legal necessity for legal service copies to be sent to Claudia Denker-Eccles.
  36. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes erroneously claims that MCA 40-15-302 extends the term of a temporary order of protection on an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court of a district court appellate decision.
  37. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes failed to rule thatif MCA 40-15-302 automatically extends the term of a TOP during an appeal, it is unconstitutional because it resulted in deprivation of Windsor’s liberty or property without a hearing for as long as 546 days and because it is vague.
  38. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that the EX-PARTE-TOP is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
  39. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that Count #1 had to be dismissed because due process required a hearing before Windsor could be required to transfer his website to Sean Boushie.
  40. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that the EX-PARTE-TOP was invalid from inception in violation of MCA 40-15-201.
  41. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to order that the Statute of Limitations expired on Count #1.
  42. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has violated Windsor’s due process rights throughout pre-trial activity.
  43. Windsor objects that Judge John W. Larson blocked Windsor’s release from the Ellis County Jail on bond.
  44. Windsor objects that Judge Karen Townsend and/or Judge John W. Larson allowed bogus felony charges to be filed so Windsor could be extradited to stand trial for two misdemeanors.
  45. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes had the information needed to dismiss the charges almost two months before Windsor was extradited.
  46. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes ignored dispositive issues in Motion to Quash Bench Warrant.
  47. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied motions.
  48. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes did not determine motions that Windsor made before trial as required by MCA 46-13-104.
  49. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes did not require responses to motions by the State.
  50. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes’s final determination of pretrial motions failed to state, either in writing or on the record, Judge James A. Haynes findings of fact and conclusions of law in direct violation of MCA 46-13-104.
  51. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes issued handwritten orders on motions that are not docketed as motions or orders.
  52. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor the right to file motions yet allowed the State and the Public Defender to do so.
  53. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes refused to consider any motion for reconsideration, erroneously claiming motions for reconsideration are not allowed by Montana rules.
  54. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes failed to consider if this Court has jurisdiction.
  55. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes failed to explain basis for denial of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
  56. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes failed to address the invalidity of the Temporary Order of Protection.
  57. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes allowed false, incomplete, and deceptive Minutes to be filed.
  58. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor’s Constitutional rights in a wide variety of ways.
  59. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes caused the Clerk of Court to ignore requests for file copies and other information.
  60. Windsor objects that, during a hearing, Judge James A. Haynes tore up one of Windsor’s requests to the Clerk for file copies and other information.
  61. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes denied discovery.
  62. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes denied subpoenas.
  63. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes granted the State’s Motions in Limine which will block Windsor’s defenses from being presented and will block evidence needed to support his defense that he did nothing knowingly and purposely.
  64. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has denied Windsor the ability to have a Constitutional defense, especially in light of the fact that the State responded to motions to dismiss stating that Windsor would have to establish the Constitutional arguments and facts at trial.
  65. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes ignored Windsor’s Motion for Sanctions.
  66. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes failed to set a hearing on Windsor’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause.
  67. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes mocked and demeaned him at hearings and in orders.
  68. Windsor objects that Windsor was called a whining child by Judge James A. Haynes at the April 8, 2015 hearing.
  69. Windsor objects that Windsor was called a vexatious litigant by Judge James A. Haynes at the November 20, 2015 hearing and that Judge Haynes has denied Windsor’s tights to due process under the guise that he is a vexatious litigant.
  70. Windsor objects that Windsor’s defense efforts were demeaned as antics by Judge James A. Haynes at the November 20, 2015 hearing.
  71. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes failed to dismiss misdemeanor charges when he indicated in an order that the EX PARTE TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION was overly broad, and would thus be unconstitutional.
  72. Windsor objects that on April 8, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order setting a hearing the same day without notice to Windsor, thus denying due process.
  73. Windsor objects that On April 8, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes stated on the record at the hearing in DC-14-509 that pro se Windsor was to consult with back-up counsel Christopher Daly before filing anything.
  74. Windsor objects that on April 28, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order setting an April 29, 2015 hearing in DC-14-509 without notice to Windsor and thus denying due process.
  75. Windsor objects that on May 4, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes denied his Motion regarding Discovery with a handwritten scribble in the upper right hand corner of the motion and no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  76. Windsor objects that Deputy Missoula County Attorney Jennifer Clark attempted to scare Windsor into accepting a plea agreement by falsely claiming that the U.S. Attorney was looking at charges.
  77. Windsor objects that on May 4, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor’s Motion for Constitutional Rights, Due Process, and Equal Protection with a one sentence denial and no findings of fact and conclusions of law.
  78. Windsor objects that on May 6, 2015, in a handwritten undocketed note, Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor’s Notice of Lost Filing without findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  79. Windsor objects that on May 6, 2015, in a handwritten undocketed note, Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor’s Motion for Rights of Speedy Trial saying he cited no authority while Windsor was in jail where he was denied access to any legal information whatsoever.
  80. Windsor objects that on May 6, 2015, in a handwritten undocketed note, Judge James A. Haynes scribbled denied on Windsor’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  81. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied Windsor’s May 12, 2015 Motion for Sanctions with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  82. Windsor objects that On May 14, 2015, Windsor filed a Motion to Declare All Charges are Misdemeanors and on May 27, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes denied this motion with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  83. Windsor objects that Windsor’s Motion to Clarify Pre-Trial Motions was denied by Judge James A. Haynes with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  84. Windsor objects that Windsor’s Motion to Clarify and Modify Bond Restrictions was denied by Judge James A. Haynes on May 27, 2015 with a one sentence denial and no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  85. Windsor objects that Windsor’s Motion for Reconsideration of Motion Regarding Discovery was denied by Judge James A. Haynes on May 27, 2015 with a one sentence denial and no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  86. Windsor objects that Windsor’s Notice of Filing Requests for Subpoenas was denied on May 27, 2015 with a one sentence denial and no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  87. Windsor objects that on May 27, 2015, with a one sentence denial, Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor’s Request for Subpoenas for Document Production with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  88. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes berated Windsor during the April 8, April 29, May 29, September 11, and November 20, 2015 hearings.
  89. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied his Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Declare All Charges are Misdemeanors with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  90. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied his Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Right to Speedy Trial with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  91. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied his Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Subpoenas with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  92. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied his Motion for Security with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  93. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied his Motion to Compel Legal Mail Service with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  94. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order denying the filing of his Motion to Dismiss what is now Count #2.
  95. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order denying the filing of his Motion to Modify Requirements for Pre-Trial Conference.
  96. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order denying the filing of his Motion to Dismiss what is now Count #1.
  97. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order denying the filing of his Motion to Allow Polygraph Evidence.
  98. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order denying the filing of his Motion regarding Filming, Security, Broadcasting, and Cellphones.
  99. Windsor objects that on November 20, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes denied the filing of Windsor’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause.
  100. Windsor objects that on November 20, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes denied Windsor’s Request for Leave to file Motions and said he could file a total of 20 pages for the rest of the trial.
  101. Windsor objects that On September 11, 2015, a Minute Entry was made from the hearing that contains false information about matters discussed at the hearing.
  102. Windsor objects that on September 21, 2015, in one sentence, Judge James A. Haynes summarily denied eight motions without discussion or findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  103. Windsor objects that On September 30, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an Order on his First Motions in Limine that denied protections on undisclosed discovery and denied three of his defenses – fraud upon the court, corruption, and Constitutional rights, with no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  104. Windsor objects that on October 29, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes entered an order failing to dismiss two misdemeanor Counts when the order acknowledges that the TOP was unconstitutionally vague.
  105. Windsor objects that on October 29, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes ruled that the EX-PARTE-TOP was valid for 546 days without a hearing, providing no explanation for how that could be and ignoring the Constitutional issued raised by Windsor.
  106. Windsor objects that on November 5, 2015, Windsor filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense, but on November 20, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes issued an order denying the filing of this motion.
  107. Windsor objects that on November 20, 2015, when Judge James A. Haynes denied the filing of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense, he failed to address the jurisdiction issue preseented.
  108. Windsor objects that on December 1, 2015, Judge James A. Haynes granted the State’s Motions in Limine without findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  109. Windsor objects that on December 4, 2015, in a handwritten undocketed note, Judge James A. Haynes denied his Motion to Dismiss Count #1 due to expiration of the statute of limitations.
  110. Windsor objects that on December 4, 2015, in a handwritten undocketed note, Judge James A. Haynes denied the Motion to Dismiss all charges as Unconstitutional.
  111. Windsor objects that the judges in this case have made independent investigations of the facts and Windsor.
  112. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has failed to provide security in the courtroom when Sean B**shie, the man who attempted to murder Windsor, has attended every hearing.
  113. Windsor objects that Judge James A. Haynes has allowed Sean B**shie to carry a concealed handgun in the courthouse.

 

I will be announcing a special filming after the trial in Missoula.  I want to try to get as many victims as possible to come to the trial.  Then we will film a group session followed by filming of individual stories.  So, if you are in Montana or have friends there, please ask them to participate.

Bill Windsor has been suspended from Facebook for 30 days for publishing something that he didn't publish.  So, for all the news, come here. 

Image copyright Friends of Bill Windsor


For a quick update on Bill Windsor's saga and his trial, see this summary on LawlessAmerica.com.

If you want to reach Bill Windsor, his home address is 110 East Center Street #1213, Madison, SD 57042.  That mail gets forwarded to him once a week.  His email is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This. His phone is 770-578-1094, but it is not answered; messages are checked by dialing in to Verizon from a state far, far away, and Bill receives an email with the name, number, and one sentence summary of each message.

For the Lawless America videos, see www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica.  Bill Windsor's Facebook page is www.facebook.com/billwindsor1  Bill Windsor's Twitter account is www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica.  And click here for the Lawless America Facebook page that has just magically reappeared.

{jcomments on}



 

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.


 FABOJ