thrash-thomas

Anatomy of a Corrupt Lawsuit perpetrated by Federal Judge Thomas W. Thrash – Part 1

thrash-thomas

Federal Judge Thomas W. Thrash is a criminal.  Unfortunately, he continues to commit crimes while hiding behind his black robe and a mega-ugly scowl.

Judges commit crimes in a wide variety of ways.  They attempt to disguise their crimes by committing them while pretending to be doing their jobs.

It can take a lot of work to understand what they are doing, but in this relatively simple case, all it takes is a little reading….

This is the saga of 2011CV202857 filed in the Fulton County Superior Court by me, William M. Windsor.  It was illegally removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia where it became Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-01922-TWT, presided over by Judge Thomas W. Thrash.

To show what happened, I have reproduced almost all of the Court Docket in narrative form with links to all of the documents.  [At the end of relevant docket entries, I have inserted my analysis and explanation within brackets.]  I am not an attorney, and I do not give legal advice.  This is the analysis of a pro se party who has not been to law school, but who has spent thousands of hours studying the law.  I am producing this history and analysis in several parts.  This is Part 1:

Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-01922-TWT

  1. On May 19, 2011, William M. Windsor paid the filing fee and filed a Verified Complaint, a simple Declaratory Judgment Action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 and O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2, in the Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia asking the court to declare what Georgia’s statute means as to power of attorney agreements. The civil action was given No. 2011CV200857, and the case was assigned to Judge Constance C. Russell. [Such an action does not involve damages, and there isn’t even a reason for an answer by the defendants.  Judges may issue their decisions within as little as 20 days.]

  2. On June 13, 2011, U.S. Attorneys, Ms. Sally Quillian Yates (“Ms. Yates”) and/or Mr. Christopher Huber (“Mr. Huber”), filed a NOTICE OF REMOVAL to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“N.D.Ga”) in regard to 2011CV200857, and it became N.D.Ga Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-01922-TWT (“01922”), and was assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (Notice of Removal Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4.) [There is nothing in the record of any court to indicate that Ms. Sally Quillian Yates and/or Mr. Christopher Huber represent any of the Defendants or had any authority to file anything in 01922.  According to William M. Windsor’s study of the law and motions prepared as a result, the NOTICE OF REMOVAL was defective and illegal for a variety of reasons. William M. Windsor does not believe that Judge Thomas W. Thrash was randomly assigned.  Since Judge Thomas W. Thrash was assigned all four William M. Windsor cases that were illegally removed from Fulton County Superior Court, and based upon his completely illegal actions, William M. Windsor believes Judge Thomas W. Thrash was hand-picked by the criminal racketeering operation in the Georgia federal courts to handle these cases and make William M. Windsor’s efforts to expose corruption disappear.] [Please note that no Defendant has ever filed an affidavit, testified at a hearing, or made any evidence part of the record in this case. So, there was never one single fact in the record for the Defendants.  Every filing and attempted filing by William M. Windsor included a sworn verification under penalty of perjury, which makes everything that William M. Windsor filed a sworn affidavit, evidence that is part of the record.  The intentional omission of affidavits with motions by the attorneys allegedly representing the Defendants is a violation of N.D.Ga Local Rule 7.1 A, which REQUIRES affidavits to support any alleged statement of fact.]  [The Notice of Removal is a false pleading that violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, which requires that attorneys certify “that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law….” Sally Quillian Yates and Christopher Huber filed this Notice of Removal claiming it was based upon a federal issue, which they knew to be completely, totally false. In addition, they filed the Notice of Removal for totally improper purposes. This is a violation of FRCP Rule 11. Violations of Georgia state criminal laws by Christopher Huber are: Perjury – O.C.G.A. § 16-10-70; False Swearing – Making False Statements – O.C.G.A. § 16-10-71 and O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Conspiracy – O.C.G.A. § 16-4-8; violation of the RICO statute of the State of Georgia, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq; violations of federal criminal laws by Christopher Huber are: False Swearing – Making False Statements – 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Obstruction of Justice — 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Conspiracy — 18 U.S.C. § 371; Aiding and Abetting — 18 U.S.C. § 2.]    

  3. The 01922 DOCKET shows some of the activity in Civil Action 1:11-CV-01922-TWT.  [The 01922 DOCKET does not show all of the activity, because a significant aspect of the illegal activity in this case has been the destruction of filings made by William M. Windsor.  Judge Thomas W. Thrash and the Office of the Clerk of the Court of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia definitely conspired to make this happen.  This is easily established as neither did anything to rectify the problem; they simply ignored it when William M. Windsor repeatedly brought the wrongdoing to their attention .  Needless to say, no one has the right to destroy any documents filed with a court.  The destruction of court filings is the crime of obstruction of justice.  The Clerk of the Court has committed a violation of criminal statute 18 U.S.C. § 2076.]  

  4. Judge Thomas W. Thrash never considered whether or not the federal district court had jurisdiction. [Determining whether jurisdiction exists is the initial legal obligation of a judge after a case is removed to federal court.  It is clear and well-established law that a judge must first determine whether the judge has jurisdiction before acting in any case. (Adams v. State, No. 1:07-cv-2924-WSD-CCH (N.D.Ga. 03/05/2008).) (See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998); see also University of S. Ala. v. The Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999); Jean Dean v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 2:10-cv-564-FtM-29SPC (M.D.Fla. 04/21/2011); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994).) Because there was no legal basis whatsoever to remove this case to federal court, Judge Thomas W. Thrash never ruled on jurisdiction. Since he needed to keep the case in federal court so he would have control over denying William M. Windsor’s rights, Judge Thomas W. Thrash ignored jurisdiction and proceeded to conduct simulated litigation. Nothing that took place from this point is valid – it is all void as Judge Thomas W. Thrash and the federal court had no jurisdiction.  Because the failure to rule on jurisdiction was intentional, designed to damage Windsor and deprive him of his rights, Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s actions constitute the crime of obstruction of justice.] 

  5. William M. Windsor filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in 2011CV200857.  On June 13, 2011, it was docketed as 01922 Docket #2.)  [The temporary relief that William M. Windsor sought was: that Defendants be temporarily restrained and preliminarily and permanently enjoined from violating Georgia law O.C.G.A. § 10-6-5 regarding powers of attorney; and that Defendant Judge William S. Duffey be temporarily restrained and preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further actions in Civil Action 1:09-CV-01543-WSD, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD, or any other matter involving William M. Windsor that violate Georgia law and William M. Windsor’s rights regarding powers of attorney, pending further order of the Court. [All this requests asks is that Judge William S. Duffey be restrained from violating the law.]

  6. On June 13, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Submission of 01922 Docket #2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Hearing, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dfb) (Entered: 06/13/2011.) [Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.] 

  7. On June 13, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Notification of Docket Correction to reflect correct civil action number assigned, 1:11-cv-1922-TWT. (dfb) (Entered: 06/13/2011.)  [Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.] 

  8. On June 13, 2011, the U.S. Attorney filed a MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR MOTION. (01922 Docket #3.) [The primary purpose of this motion was to protect the judges and government employees from having to answer the lawsuit under oath. A Verified Complaint (a complaint that the Plaintiff swears is true under penalty of perjury) requires a verified answer.  William M. Windsor doesn’t believe the corrupt judges and government employees can risk saying anything under oath because they will be more overtly committing crimes when they lie under oath. This motion made it easy for corrupt Judge Thomas W. Thrash to shield his corrupt fellow judges by committing the crime of obstruction of justice.  The U.S. Attorneys cited many alleged statements of fact in their motion, but they did not provide an affidavit to support those allegations of fact. The intentional omission of affidavits with motions is a violation of N.D.Ga Local Rule 7.1 A, which requires affidavits to support any alleged statement of fact.]

  9. On June 13, 2011, the U.S. Attorney filed a MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. (01922 Docket #4 — Part 2 – Part 3.) [This is an outrageous motion designed to deprive William M. Windsor of many of his Constitutional rights relative to litigation. The U.S. Attorney makes statements that are alleged to be facts, but there is no evidence before the Court, so these are unsupported facts that should be ignored by an honest judge. The allegations of the U.S. Attorney are all false. The U.S. Attorneys cited many alleged statements of fact in their motion, but they did not provide an affidavit to support those allegations of fact. The intentional omission of affidavits with motions is a violation of N.D.Ga Local Rule 7.1 A, which requires affidavits to support any alleged statement of fact. This motion is a violation of FRCP Rule 11, because the U.S. Attorney knows the allegations are false. Violations of Georgia state laws by Christopher Huber are: Perjury – O.C.G.A. § 16-10-70; False Swearing – Making False Statements – O.C.G.A. § 16-10-71 and O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Conspiracy – O.C.G.A. § 16-4-8; violation of the RICO statute of the State of Georgia, violations of federal laws by Christopher Huber are: False Swearing – Making False Statements – 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Obstruction of Justice — 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Conspiracy — 18 U.S.C. § 371; Aiding and Abetting — 18 U.S.C. § 2.] 

  10. On June 14, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS. (01922 Docket #5.) [This is a mandatory filing after a federal civil action begins as per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1.  None of the Defendants ever filed this mandatory certificate. Judge Thomas W. Thrash allowed the Defendants to violate this Rule.]  

  11. On June 14, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. (01922 Docket #6.) [This response is a 16-page sworn response under penalty of perjury that spells out the many reasons the motion had to be denied, the most important of which is that there were no facts before the Court for the Defendants.  Therefore, there was no factual basis for the requested relief.]

  12. On June 14, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a Motion to Deny Removal AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING. (01922 Docket #7.) [This MOTION documents and cites the many ways that the NOTICE OF REMOVAL was illegal and defective. Based upon the statutes and case law, Judge Thomas W. Thrash had a legal obligation to immediately rule on the propriety of the NOTICE OF REMOVAL.  He ignored these duties.  Because this was intentional by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, his actions constitute obstruction of justice.]

  13. On June 15, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a Motion to DISQUALIFY MS. SALLY QUILLIAN YATES, MR. CHRISTOPHER HUBER, AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. (01922 Docket #12.) (01922 012-x1 is the cover letter for these papers.  01922 012-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.) [This motion explains their lack of authority and details conflicts galore.  I always have signed proof of delivery to and receipt by the Clerk of the Court for all of my filings.]

  14. On June 15, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash issued an ORDER denying a hearing on a request for a TRO and denying the motion for TRO. (01922 Docket #17 — NEF.)  [Judge Thomas W. Thrash stated in his so-called June 15, 2011 Order Denying TRO that the purpose of the restraining order was to restrain Judge William S. Duffey “from violating O.C.G.A. § 10-6-5,” yet he proceeded to deny the motion by claiming it sought to be allowed to commit violations of criminal statutes. Judge Thomas W. Thrash commits perjury in a number of orders. He intentionally lied to damage William M. Windsor and obstruct justice. Judge Thomas W. Thrash stated in his June 15, 2011 Order Denying TRO that the Motion for TRO fails because William M. Windsor was seeking to commit the unauthorized practice of law.  This is perjury.  Nowhere in William M. Windsor’s Motion for TRO does it ask to commit the unauthorized practice of law. The Verified Complaint in 01922 and the Motion for TRO make it absolutely clear that the only thing William M. Windsor was seeking was a declaratory judgment as to exactly what a person can do under the Georgia statute that authorizes use of a “power of attorney.”  With no testimony of any type from anyone claiming William M. Windsor was seeking to commit the unauthorized practice of law, there isn’t even a fact issue.  This wasn’t an error by Judge Thomas W. Thrash.  If it was, he could have immediately corrected it when William M. Windsor filed a motion for reconsideration of the order.  This was intentional by Judge Thomas W. Thrash because he is criminally prejudiced for the Defendants and criminally biased against William M. Windsor.  Every party presenting a motion for a temporary restraining order is allowed the opportunity to present their arguments to a judge in a hearing.  Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied William M. Windsor this universally-established right.  This is not a valid order because it is not signed, and it does not bear the seal of the court; this is a clear violation of the rules mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1691. Violations of Georgia state laws by Judge Thomas W. Thrash are: Perjury – O.C.G.A. § 16-10-70; False Swearing – Making False Statements – O.C.G.A. § 16-10-71 and O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Conspiracy – O.C.G.A. § 16-4-8; violation of the RICO statute of the State of Georgia; violations of federal laws by Judge Thomas W. Thrash are: False Swearing – Making False Statements – 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Obstruction of Justice — 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Conspiracy — 18 U.S.C. § 371.]  [Judge Thomas W. Thrash also violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 1 — Judges Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary. Canon 1 – Judges shall not show favoritism. Canon 2 — Judges Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety. Canon 2A. — Judges shall respect and comply with the law. Canon 2A. – Judges shall promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Canon 2A. – Judges shall promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3 — Judges Shall Perform the Duties of Their Office Impartially and Diligently. Canon 3 B.(2) — Judges should be faithful to the law. Canon 3 B.(5) — Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Canon 3 B.(7) — Judges shall accord to every person the right to be heard according to law. Canon 3 B.(8) — Judges shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently. Canon 3 D. (2) — Judges who receive information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Standards of Conduct of the State Bar of Georgia should take appropriate action. Canon 3 E. (1) — Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and this includes that judges may not act as judge in a case where he or she is a defendant.]

  15. On June 16, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re Docket #17 Order on Motion for TRO, Order on Motion for Hearing (hfm) (Entered: 06/16/2011.) [Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.] 

  16. On June 16, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Submission of Docket #4 MOTION for Protective Order, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (ss) (Entered: 06/16/2011.)  [Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.] 

  17. On June 16, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re Docket #19 Order (ank) (Entered: 06/16/2011.) [Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]  [TALLY OF VIOLATIONS THUS FAR: Defendants’ Attorneys Violation of Rules: 4.  Defendants’ Attorneys Violations of Georgia Criminal Statutes: 10.  Defendants’ Attorneys Violations of Federal Criminal Statutes: 12.  Clerk of the Court’s Violation of Rules: 6.  Clerk of the Court’s Violations of Georgia Criminal Statutes: 0.  Clerk of the Court’s Violations of Federal Criminal Statutes: 2.  Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s Violation of Rules: 3.  Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s Violations of Georgia Criminal Statutes: 6.  Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s Violations of Federal Criminal Statutes: 6.  Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct: 13.  TOTAL VIOLATIONS: 63.] 

This is Part 1.  You will find that the final tally will be hundreds of violations.  I never violated any rule or law.

Part 1 — Part 2 — Part 3 — Part 4 — Part 5

Note: I am not an attorney.  I am pro se.  I do not give legal advice.  My comments and charges here are my views based upon thousands of hours of study of law as a pro se party.

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. 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 of 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.

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply