 |
This is Part 4 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 commit crimes against 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 — Part 2 — Part 3. This is Part 4:
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-01922-TWT (“01922”)
77. On July 19, 2011, some of the Defendants filed a MOTION TO DISMISS (“MTDâ€). [01922 Docket #52 and 01922 Docket #52-1.]
[The U.S. Attorney distorted the facts in the MTD. There is no affidavit of any type in the record from the Defendants, so all alleged statements of fact in the MTD must be stricken and disregarded. The U.S. Attorney made many false statements in the MTD. The U.S. Attorney falsely alleged that the complaint is improper and frivolous. There can be nothing frivolous about asking the State of Georgia to define what one of its statutes means. No Defendant 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 is a violation of N.D.Ga Local Rule 7.1 A, which requires affidavits to support any alleged statement of fact. The MOTION TO DISMISS 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 MOTION making claims that they knew to be false. They filed the MOTION for totally improper purposes. This is a violation of FRCP Rule 11. 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.]
78. On July 25, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an EMREGENCY REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXTENSION (052-x1). This motion was never docketed or processed. (052-x3 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (052-x4 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 #56.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Nothing can be frivolous about a request for an extension of time to respond. In fact, the Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time on June 13, 2011 (01922 Docket #3), and Judge Thomas W. Thrash granted the motion on June 16, 2011 (01922 Docket #19).]
79. On July 25, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an EMERGENCY REQUEST TO FILE A MOTION FOR STAY (052-x2). This motion was never docketed or processed. (052-x3 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (052-x4 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 #56.) This is, of course, ridiculous. On July 14, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a Notice of Appeal of the filing injunction. Preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable, and the lawsuit is supposed to be stayed. William M. Windsor simply filed a request to file a motion to confirm that the case was stayed pending the appeal.]
80. On July 28, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION. [01922 Docket #54.]
81. On July 29, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an ORDER (01922 Docket #56) in which he denied permission “to file†papers received by the Clerk on 7/25/11. In the order, Judge Thomas W. Thrash states that “the scurrilous and reckless claims of fraud and criminality on the part of the judges of the Northern District are frivolous.â€
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash made this outrageous statement based upon absolutely no evidence before the court but William M. Windsor’s sworn affidavits and evidence. These filings are listed in the paragraphs immediately above, and there is nothing frivolous or improper about any of them. Calling something “frivolous†is a patented corruption technique used by judges so they don’t have to explain a ruling that is totally indefensible. 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, iolations 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.]
82. On July 29, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS. [01922 Docket #57.]
[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 #75.) This is, of course, ridiculous.]
83. On July 29, 2011, William M. Windsor filed REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE A NOTICE OF LEAVE. (057-x1) (057-x2 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with the Request.) The motion was never docketed or processed. (057-x3 is the Delivery Confirmation for the Request that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[On August 30, 2011 (01922 Docket #75), Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to file claiming “The papers constitute attempted abuse of the judicial system. The claims are frivolous.†But note that on August 30, 2011 (01922 Docket #74), July 6, 2011 (01922 Docket #40), and June 16, 2011 (01922 Docket #8), the U.S. Attorney was allowed to file notices of leave, and they were granted. Judge Thomas W. Thrash is quite simply a corrupt criminal masquerading as a federal judge.]
84. On July 29, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #53 Order (tcc) (Entered: 07/29/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
85. On July 29, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #56 Order. (tcc) (Entered: 07/29/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
86. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXTENSION ON response to motion to dismiss. [01922 Docket #57.]
[Approval to file this motion was not approved until September 23, 2011. (01922 Docket #86.) Judge Thomas W. Thrash conspired with the Clerk of the Court to “lose†this filing for 53 days.]
87. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL. [01922 Docket #58.]
88. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED JULY 29 (058-X1). This was never docketed or processed. (058-X7 is a true and correct copy of the cover letters sent with these papers.) (058-X8 is a true and correct copy of 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 #86.) This is, of course, ridiculous. 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 three days after the order was entered. The order was TOTALLY improper, and motions for reconsideration are authorized by the Local Rules.]
89. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST TO FILE NOTICE OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (058-X2). This was never docketed or processed. (058-X7 is a true and correct copy of the cover letters sent with these papers.) (058-X8 is a true and correct copy of 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 #86.) This is, of course, ridiculous. The Request was simply to file notice in the District Court of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in the appellate court. Notices of appeals cannot possibly be considered frivolous.]
90. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a RESPONSE TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR REMAND OR MOTION TO CONFIRM CONVERSION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (058-X3). This was not docketed or processed. (058-X7 is a true and correct copy of the cover letters sent with these papers.) (058-X8 is a true and correct copy of the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
91. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND (058-x4). This was never docketed or processed. (058-X7 is a true and correct copy of the cover letters sent with these papers.) (058-X8 is a true and correct copy of 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 #86.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Nothing can be frivolous about a request for an extension of time to respond. In fact, the Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time on June 13, 2011 (01922 Docket #3), and Judge Thomas W. Thrash granted the motion on June 16, 2011 (01922 Docket #19).]
92. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, MOTION FOR HEARING. This was never docketed or processed. (058-X7 is a true and correct copy of the cover letters sent with these papers.) (058-X8 is a true and correct copy of 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 #86.) This is, of course, ridiculous.]
93. On August 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an APPLICATION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS. [01922 Docket #64.]
94. On August 4, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: SUBMISSION of 01922 Docket #51 MOTION TO CONFIRM STAY, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 08/04/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
95. On August 9, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an ORDER (01922 Docket #62) in which he denied William M. Windsor’s MOTION FOR STAY. No explanation was given.
[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.]
96. On August 9, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #62 Order on Motion to Confirm Stay. (rej) (Entered: 08/09/2011.)
97. On August 10, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: SUBMISSION of 01922 Docket #64 APPLICATION to Appeal in forma pauperis submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (kac) (Entered: 08/10/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
98. On August 11, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an ORDER (01922 Docket #66) in which he denied William M. Windsor’s APPLICATION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.
[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. Judge Thomas W. Thrash makes false statements in the order. He had no factual justification for his denial, so he invented facts so he could damage William M. Windsor yet again.]
99. On August 10, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #66 Order on Application to Appeal in forma pauperis. (rej) (Entered: 08/11/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
100. On August 15, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (01922 Docket #96). (096-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (096-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[The motion was not docketed or processed for 44 days. Judge Thomas W. Thrash did not allow the exhibits to the motion to be filed, and there is no legal authority whatsoever to refuse to allow valid evidence to be filed. (See 01922 Docket #67.) Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s delay enabled the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to dismiss William M. Windsor’s appeals for non-payment.]
101. On August 16, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an ORDER (01922 Docket #67) in which he denied permission “to file†the exhibits to William M. Windsor’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS received by the Clerk on 8/15/11.
[The Exhibits are the evidence. No judge has any legal right to block the filing of relevant evidence, and this evidence was absolutely essential. Judge Thomas W. Thrash did anything and everything to block evidence form being filed in this Civil Action. 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.]
102. On August 16, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #67 Order. (dr) (Entered: 08/16/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
103. On August 25, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL. [01922 Docket #71.] (071-x1 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
104. On August 26, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: SUBMISSION of 01922 Docket #57 MOTION for Leave to File Emergency Request For Consent to File A Motion For Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss, 01922 Docket #52 MOTION to Dismiss, 01922 Docket #55 MOTION for Leave to File Motion For Leave to Exceed Page Limitation, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 08/26/2011.)
105. On August 29, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an ORDER (01922 Docket #73) in which he denied William M. Windsor’s MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION.
[No explanation was given, but Judge Thomas W. Thrash demonstrated his extra-judicial bias against William M. Windsor by citing a false statement from an unidentified order. 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.]
106. On August 30, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an ORDER (01922 Docket #75) in which he denied permission “to file†papers received by the Clerk on 7/29/11.
[These filings are listed in the paragraphs immediately above, and there is nothing frivolous or improper about any of them. Calling something “frivolous†is a patented corruption technique used by judges so they don’t have to explain a ruling that is totally indefensible. 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.]
107. On August 30, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #73 Order. (dr) (Entered: 08/30/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
108. On August 31, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #75 Order (dr) (Entered: 08/31/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
109. On September 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL. [01922 Docket #77.] (077-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (077-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
110. On September 1, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT (078-x1). This was never docketed or processed. (077-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (077-x2 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 #84.) This is, of course, ridiculous. William M. Windsor had already filed the Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Thomas W. Thrash with the Eleventh Circuit. This was simply a request to have the Compla9int made part of the record in this Civil Action. It carefully documented the wrongdoing and bias of Judge Thomas W. Thrash.]
111. On September 14, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a REQUEST TO FILE A MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET (082-x1). This has not been docketed or processed. (082-x3 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (082-x4 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 #84.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Docket #61 is a link to a letter that does not apply to this Civil Action. It was an error on the Docket that had to be corrected.]
112. On September 14, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS (082-x2). This has not been docketed or processed. (082-x3 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (082-x4 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 #84.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) provides an absolute right to a party to file a motion to set aside orders and judgments in a case. Denying William M. Windsor the legal right to file this motion is an egregious violation of the legal and Constitutional rights of William M Windsor.]
113. On September 16, 2011, William M. Windsor filed an EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO FILE EXPEDITED MOTION FOR CONFERENCE (082-x5). (082-x6 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (082-x7 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 #84.) This is, of course, ridiculous. The request was for a conference with Judge Thomas W. Thrash and the U.S. Attorneys so that the violations of William M. Windsor’s Constitutional rights could be discussed.]
114. On September 20, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET (082-x8). (082-x9 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (_____ is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[These have not been docketed. Judge Thomas W. Thrash simply destroyed these documents. This is the crime of obstruction of justice.]
115. On September 23, 2011, a certified copy of ORDER of USCA DISMISSING 01922 Docket #46 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor for want of prosecution because the Appellant has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court within the time fixed by the rules was docketed by the Clerk of the Court. (01922 Docket #85.) Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-13212-A. (kac) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[This dismissal was improper by the Eleventh Circuit. William M. Windsor had filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of Application for In Forma Pauperis Status. The Eleventh Circuit ignored this and filings in this regard with them so they could conspire with Judge Thomas W. Thrash to damage Windsor and deny his rights of appeal.]
116. On September 23, 2011, 01922 Docket #87 Certified copy of ORDER of USCA DISMISSING 01922 Docket #58 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor for want of prosecution because the Appellant has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court within the time fixed by the rules. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-13523-A. (kac) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[This dismissal was improper by the Eleventh Circuit. William M. Windsor had filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of Application for In Forma Pauperis Status. The Eleventh Circuit ignored this and filings in this regard with them so they could conspire with judge Thomas W. Thrash to damage Windsor and deny his rights of appeal.]
117. On September 23, 2011, 01922 Docket #88 Certified copy of ORDER of USCA DISMISSING 01922 Docket #71 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor for want of prosecution because the Appellant has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court within the time fixed by the rules. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-13997-A. (kac) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[This dismissal was improper by the Eleventh Circuit. William M. Windsor had filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of Application for In Forma Pauperis Status. The Eleventh Circuit ignored this and filings in this regard with them so they could conspire with judge Thomas W. Thrash to damage Windsor and deny his rights of appeal.]
118. On September 23, 2011, 01922 Docket #83 ORDER granting 01922 Docket #52 Motion to Dismiss William S. Duffey, Orinda D. Evans, James N. Hatten, John Ley, Julie E. Carnes and Joel F. Dubina. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/23/11. (dr) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[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. The dismissal is an outrage for many reasons. Judge Thomas W. Thrash had no jurisdiction over this illegally removed case. There is no basis to dismiss a declaratory judgment action; the state court simply needed to issue an order declaring what Georgia law means. A motion to dismiss was not possible, because the Defendants claimed facts that were not part of the record of the Court and thus meant that only a summary judgment would apply. The many reasons are expressed in William M. Windsor’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss 01922 Docket #89.]
119. On September 23, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #83 Order. (dr) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
120. On September 23, 2011, 01922 Docket #84 FILING ORDER NO. 14 was entered that permission to file the papers received by the Clerk from the Plaintiff on July 29, August 8, September 1, 6, 14 and 16, 2011 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/23/11. (dr) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[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. These filings are listed in paragraphs above, and there is nothing frivolous or improper about any of them. Calling something “frivolous†is a patented corruption technique used by judges so they don’t have to explain a ruling that is totally indefensible. 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, iolations 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.]
121. On September 23, 2011, 01922 Docket #86 FILING ORDER NO. 17 that permission to file the papers received by the Clerk from the Plaintiff on 8/1/11 is DENIED except for the response to the Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/23/11. (dr) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[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. These filings are listed in paragraphs above, and there is nothing frivolous or improper about any of them. Calling something “frivolous†is a patented corruption technique used by judges so they don’t have to explain a ruling that is totally indefensible. 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, iolations 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.]
122. On September 23, 2011,the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #86 OrdeR, 01922 Docket #84 Order. (dr) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
123. On September 23, 2011, 01922 Docket #89 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (01922 Docket #52) by William M. Windsor was docketed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Exhibits continued, # 3 Exhibits continued, # 4 Exhibits continued, # 5 Exhibits continued)(dr)
[This Response was not docketed until 09/26/2011.) It was actually filed on August 1, 2011. It was concealed for 53 days before it was docketed. It did not appear on the Docket until six docket entries AFTER the Motion to Dismiss was granted! (058-x7 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with the Response on August 1.) (058-x8 and 058-x9 are the Delivery Confirmations for the Response that show signed receipts were obtained by the courier.) To show how ludicrous this is, note that a REPLY to William M. Windsor’s RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS was filed and docketed on August 17, 2011 (01922 Docket #068) – 36 days before the RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS was finally filed.]
124. On September 23, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #83 Order. (dr) (Entered: 09/23/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
This is Part 4. I will add Part 5 as soon as time permits. 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}