 |
This is Part 2 of an article that proves how federal Judge Thomas W. Thrash commits crimes while hiding behind his black robe and his mega-ugly scowl.
It can take a lot of work to understand how the judges screw, glue, and tattoo pro se parties, but in this relatively simple case, all it takes is a little reading.
Please read along, and check the various court filings to understand the various crimes. Then check what happened in your case(s)…
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. (See Part 1.) This is Part 2:
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-01922-TWT (“01922”)
18. On June 17, 2011, three days after the U.S. Attorney filed its non-expedited, non-emergency motion for extension (01922 Docket #3), William M. Windsor received an order dated June 16, 2011 (01922 Docket #19) by mail.
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash violated William M. Windsor’s rights under Local Rule 7.1 B. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by granting the extension before giving William M. Windsor the prescribed 14 days to respond to the motion. The rules allow each side to present evidence and arguments before a decision is made. Judge Thomas W. Thrash didn’t care what William M. Windsor had to say, so he simply denied William M. Windsor the time allowed to file a response to the motion. Judge Thomas W. Thrash violated the Rules and violated William M. Windsor’s Constitutional rights to due process. Judge Thomas W. Thrash did this intentionally, so it constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice. Violations of Georgia state laws by Judge Thomas W. Thrash are: violation of the RICO statute of the State of Georgia, violations of federal laws by Judge Thomas W. Thrash are: Obstruction of Justice — 18 U.S.C. § 1503. 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.]
19. On June 17, 2011 at 8:01 am, William M. Windsor filed an EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING TRO AND AN EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING. (01922 Docket #22.) (022-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
Â
[Local Rule 7.2 E. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia authorizes motions for reconsideration if filed within 28 days from the entry of the order. This was filed two days after the order was entered.]
20. On June 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm, William M. Windsor filed a RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE. (01922 Docket #23.) (023-x3 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (023-x4 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Unknown to William M. Windsor, Judge Thomas W. Thrash had already issued an order granting this motion without giving William M. Windsor his legal right to file a response to be considered.]
21. On June 17, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Notation re Docket #8 Leave of Absence July 5, 6, 7, 8, 2011, by Christopher J. Huber. The Court will not require an appearance by C. Huber on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 06/17/2011.)
[Note that several leaves of absence were approved for Mr. Christopher J. Huber, but William M. Windsor’s requests for leave were either ignored or denied.]
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
22. On June 17, 2011 at 6:01 pm, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an order IMPOSING A FILING INJUNCTION ON WILLIAM M. WINDSOR (01922 Docket #25 — NEF).
[This order ignored the many reasons detailed in 01922 Docket #6. This order violated all of the case law that requires a hearing before such an order can be issued. Judge Thomas W. Thrash committed obstruction of justice, perjury and proved his criminal bias in this order. Judge Thomas W. Thrash had no evidence in the record of any type from any of the Defendants. The only evidence before him was the sworn under penalty of perjury testimony of William M. Windsor, yet Judge Thomas W. Thrash said: “This is the latest in a series of frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff.†This is absolutely false. 01922 is simply a declaratory judgment action that asks the Fulton County Superior Court to clarify a state statute. In the 01922 PROTECTIVE ORDER, Judge Thomas W. Thrash quashed discovery, though there was not even a motion before the court seeking to have discovery quashed. Judge Thomas W. Thrash issued this Protective Order without giving William M. Windsor the time for response mandated by Local Rule 7.1 B. of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Thomas W. Thrash also ordered William M. Windsor to post a cash bond or surety bond that he did not have the ability to post though there was no notice, no hearing, and no inquiry into ability to pay as required by absolutely binding court precedents that an impartial judge would have to honor. Judge Thomas W. Thrash was made aware of the fact that William M. Windsor has essentially no money, has a negative net worth of approximately $1,250,000, and was unable to post a bond.]
[This is not a valid order because it is not signed, and it does not bear the seal of the court; this is a 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.]
23. On June 17, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re Docket #25 Order on Motion for Protective Order. (dfb) (Entered: 06/17/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
24. On June 22, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE PLAINTIFF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE THOMAS WOODROW THRASH. ( 01922 Docket #31 – 28 U.S.C. 144 Certificate – Affidavit of Prejudice.) (031-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (031-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[If you review this motion for the recusal of Judge Thomas W. Thrash, it is clear that, according to the intent of our forefathers, Judge Thomas W. Thrash had to recuse himself. For Heaven’s sake, he began this lawsuit issuing and order in which he said William M. Windsor would lose based upon information that was not part of the record in the case and was totally false. The bias was established right out of the mouth of this corrupt judge.]
25. On June 23, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re Docket #29 Order (dr) (Entered: 06/23/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
26. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file an EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A CONFERENCE (032-x1). (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[The Motion expressed the desire to have a meeting with the judge and the attorneys for the Defendants to ensure that any and all issues were addressed. The motion was never docketed or processed. Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. A request for a conference cannot be frivolous or an abuse of anything.]
27. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS (032-x2). (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[This motion was a simple request to exceed the page limit on William M. Windsor’s Motion for Remand. Such requests are common. Local Rule 7.1 D. of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia allows such motions to be filed. Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. A request to exceed page limits cannot possibly be frivolous or abuse of the judicial system.]
28. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR DUE PROCESS (032-x3), (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Clerks certificate of mailings as to William M. Windsor, and other such docket entries, appear in the online PACER docket with no docket number and no link to any record. Therefore, these PACER docket notations should be deemed false and deliberately misleading. The CM/ECF Docket is different from the PACER docket. Attorneys and government employees have access to Notices of Electronic Filing that pro se parties such as William M. Windsor are denied. Windsor demanded the same docket that is available to the Court and the Office of the Clerk of the Court. Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. By denying access to the electronic records, the corrupt judges and the judicial employees can commit all types of wrongdoing – backdating orders, hiding the exact filing date and time, and more.]
29. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR VALID COPIES OF CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICATION (032-x4), (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[William M. Windsor requested consent to file a motion for an Order by the Court directing Clerk of the Court James N. Hatten to provide to Windsor a valid copy of the record(s) noted in the Docket without docket numbers, including those titled “certificate by the clerk,” together with the applicable electronic authentication records (NEFs). William M. Windsor made this request based upon his Constitutional rights, the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, and pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc. (1978). Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Judge Thomas W. Thrash and other corrupt federal judges do not want pro se parties such as Windsor to have this information as it can be used to prove their corrupt practices.]
30. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR VALIDATION OF THE COURT DOCKET (032-x5), (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. If the Clerk of the Court had sworn that the Docket was correct, he would have committed another crime. Judge Thomas W. Thrash needed to conceal the wrongdoing, so he didn’t let the motion be filed and he committed perjury claiming the motion was frivolous. Please realize that everyone is allowed to file motions without requesting approval, so every case where William M. Windsor was denied the right to file is doubly outrageous.]
31. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS (032-x6). (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.) [Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. No one in his right mind could claim that Constitutional rights are frivolous. The fact that our Constitutional rights are ignored and demeaned by judges is something that all Americans need to realize.]
32. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR DUE PROCESS (032-x7), (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Under Local Rule 7.1 E. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, judges decide motions without a hearing unless a hearing is ordered by the judge. Therefore, a motion has to be filed requesting a hearing. Such motions cannot possibly be frivolous or be abuse of the judicial system.]
33. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR VALID COPIES OF CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICATION (032-x8), (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Under Local Rule 7.1 E. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, judges decide motions without a hearing unless a hearing is ordered by the judge. Therefore, a motion has to be filed requesting a hearing. Such motions cannot possibly be frivolous or be abuse of the judicial system.]
34. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a motion HEARING ON MOTION FOR VALIDATION OF THE COURT DOCKET (032-x9), (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.) [Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Under Local Rule 7.1 E. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, judges decide motions without a hearing unless a hearing is ordered by the judge. Therefore, a motion has to be filed requesting a hearing. Such motions cannot possibly be frivolous or be abuse of the judicial system.]
35. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a request for consent to file a MOTION FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS (032-x10). (032-x11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to docket the motion claiming “The claims are frivolous and the papers are attempted abuse of the judicial system.†(01922 Docket #41.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Under Local Rule 7.1 E. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, judges decide motions without a hearing unless a hearing is ordered by the judge. Therefore, a motion has to be filed requesting a hearing. Such motions cannot possibly be frivolous or be abuse of the judicial system.]
36. On June 27, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a Reply to the Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Recuse. [01922 Docket #33.] (033-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (032-x12 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
This is Part 2. You will find that the final tally will be hundreds of violations. I never violated any rule or law.
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.
Part 1 — Part 2 — Part 3 — Part 4 — Part 5
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}