When I discovered that I was being victimized by judicial corruption, I decided to fight.
I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice.
This is the thirteenth in a series of articles that detail the things that I have done in fighting judicial corruption.
Most of this applies to fighting any form of government corruption....
This article applies specifically to federal courts where the courts are (in my opinion) knowingly and intentionally issuing invalid orders. If your case is in local, county, or state court, check the requirements for valid orders and process for your state, and then compare your orders to those requirements.
One of the many ways that federal judges routinely violate the law is by issuing "orders" that appear to be court orders, but they are merely invalid pieces of paper.
28 U.S.C. Â§ 1691 requires that all orders must be signed and issued under seal.
In my experience, federal courts rarely issue legal orders....
The word â€œprocessâ€ at 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1691 means a court order. See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884); Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891); U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897); Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904); U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921); In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924); Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968); and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).
"The district court held that 'the injunction signed only by a deputy clerk of the District Court is void' for want of a judicial signature. Section 1691 of Title 28, U.S.C. (which was not called to the attention of the district court) provides that 'All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.'" In view of the clear provisions of the statute, the judgment must be reversed." (Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968).)
"The legal meaning of the word 'process' varies according to the context, subject matter, and spirit of the statute in which it occurs. [United States v. Kinney, D.C., 264 F. 542, writ of error dismissed 254 U.S. 663, 41 S. Ct. 64, 65 L. Ed. 464; United States v. Murphy, D.C., 82 F. 893.] In some jurisdictions codes or statutes variously define 'process' as signifying or including: A writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings; all writs, warrants, summonses, and orders of courts of justice or judicial officers; or any writ, declaration, summons, order, or subpoena whereby any action, suit, or proceeding shall be commenced, or which shall be issued in or upon any action, suit, or proceeding". 50 Cor. Jur. 442. "The term 'process' includes any writ of summons, subpoena or order * * * issued in or upon any action, * * * brought in any court * * * having jurisdiction of the subject-matter." Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369, 374, 24 L. Ed. 853. "A 'process' is merely a formal writing issued by authority of law. In re Martin, 86 N.J.Eq. 265, 98 A. 510; State v. Superior Court of Thurston County, 139 wash. 454, 247 P. 942; see, also, In re Simon [2 Cir.], 297 F. 942; Frank Adams Elec. Co. v. Witman, 16 Ga.App. 574, 85 S.E. 819." Massey v. United States, D.C., 46 F.2d 78, 79. (United States v. Fore, 38 F. Supp. 142 (03/10/1941).)
"The term â€˜process' is not limited to â€˜summons.â€™ In its broadest sense it is equivalent to, or synonymous with, â€˜procedure,â€™ or â€˜proceeding.â€™ ...the term is also broadly defined as the means whereby a court compels a compliance with its demands.â€ 72 CJS Process Â§ 2, at 589 (1987).
See also Chisholm v. Gilmer, 299 U.S. 99 (1936).
Furthermore, the word "process" itself implies court action. It is generally defined as the means by which a court compels the appearance of a defendant before it or by which the court compels a compliance with its demands. Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition 1968), p. 1370; United States v. Kinney, 264 F. 542 (E.D.Pa.1920); United States v. Fore, 38 F.Supp. 142 (S.D.Cal.1941); 72 C.J.S. Process Â§ 1; State v. Sullivan, 245 Wis. 180, 13 N.W.2d 550 (1944). See 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1691-1696. (Girardier v. Webster College, 563 F.2d 126 (1977.)
It is clear that an order is a "process," and thus must be signed and issued under seal as required by 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1691.
But in my cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, there are only a few orders that have been signed and issued under seal. In my five actions in the United States Supreme Court, there has never been an order signed and issued under seal. Note: There is no statute that allows a judge to sign using /s/, but even if there was, the orders do not bear the required seal.
This is a legal order -- signed and sealed with signature of the Clerk of the Court.
Here are three ILLEGAL so-called "Orders" just issued on three petitions that David Schied filed in the United States Supreme Court.
Here is one of hundreds of examples from my actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
It is my opinion that if the orders issued in a case were not signed and sealed, they are void. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) and 60(d) provide a procedure where you can file a motion (60(b)) or a new complaint (60(d)) to set aside the orders and judgments in your case.
I have not filed motions with the District Court complaining about the invalid orders, because a judge could simply correct the errors by issuing corrected orders. Instead, I have used it on appeal and in Rule 60(b) and 60(d) actions where the invalid orders should result in setting aside the orders. Unfortunately, my experience is that all the federal courts are corrupt, so they will not comply with the law. But my strategy has been to take every opportunity I have and at the very least build further evidence of the corruption.
I went back and checked every order issued, and then I checked each new order. I scanned all of the orders and had them in a file on my computer so it was easy for me to generate the orders as evidence when needed.
I am not an attorney, and I do not offer legal advice. I am simply sharing the results of the thousands of hours that I have spent conducting legal research into legal and judicial corruption.
Part 1 in this series is "Go in with Your Eyes Open."
Part 2 in this series is "Fire Your Attorney."
Part 4 in this series is "Know How Judges Commit Crimes."
Part 5 in this series is "Document Everything -- Take Notes â€“ Put it in Writing."
Part 6 in this series is "Always abide by the Rules."
Part 7 in this series is "Prepare Everything Very Carefully."
Part 8 in this series is "Get Your Facts and Evidence Together."
Part 9 in this series is "Get Help from Others."
Part 10 in this series is "Take Advantage of Every Opportunity to Generate Proof of Corruption."
Part 11 in this series is "File Motions for Conferences and Hearings"
Part 12 in this series is "Always have Witnesses at Hearings"
Part 13 in this series is "Check the Orders in Your Case"
Part 14 in this series is ""Put your Proof on a Website"
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.