 |
This is Part 5 of a 5-part 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) so you can identify crimes committed against you…
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 — Part 4. This is Part 5:
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-01922-TWT (“01922”)
125. 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.]
126. On September 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #90 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 01922 Docket #42 Order, 01922 Docket #41 Order, 01922 Docket #25 Order on Motion for Protective Order, 01922 Docket #19 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 01922 Docket #39 Order on Motion for Recusal, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Leave to File, by William M. Windsor. Transcript Order Form due on 10/11/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit A-1, # 9 Exhibit B-1)(kac) (It was not docketed until 09/28/2011.) (090-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (090-x2 and 090-x3 are the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
127. On September 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #91 APPLICATION to Appeal in forma pauperis by William M. Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(kac) (It was not docketed until 09/28/2011.) (090-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (090-x2 and 090-x3 are the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
128. On September 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #94 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 01922 Docket #43 Order, 01922 Docket #49 Order, 01922 Docket #48 Order on Motion to Disqualify Attorney, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Hearing by William M. Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit A-1, # 6 Exhibit B-1)(kac) (It was not docketed until 09/29/2011.) (090-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (090-x2 and 090-x3 are the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
129. On September 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #97 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 01922 Docket #62 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 01922 Docket #56 Order, 01922 Docket #66 Order on Application to Appeal in forma pauperis, 01922 Docket #67 Order by William M. Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(kac) (It was not docketed until 09/29/2011.) (090-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (090-x2 and 090-x3 are the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Judge Thomas W. Thrash denied permission to file the exhibits filed with the Notice of Appeal. (01922 Docket #93.) This is, of course, ridiculous. Note: William M. Windsor appeals every order because Judge Thomas W. Thrash has no jurisdiction, and every order is also void as the orders do not have a signature or the seal of the court.]
130. On September 27, 2011, 01922 Docket #100 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 01922 Docket #86 Order, 01922 Docket #84 Order by William M. Windsor. (kac) (It was not docketed until 09/29/2011.) (102-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (097-x3 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
131. On September 27, 2011, 01922 Docket #102 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re: 01922 Docket #90 Notice of Appeal. Certificate of Readiness due on 10/11/2011.(kac) (It was not docketed until 09/29/2011.) (102-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (097-x3 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Pro se parties are at a distinct disadvantage (do not receive equal protection) because it is impossible to receive docketing of filings as quickly as attorneys. Attorneys file electronically and are docketed immediately upon filing. Pro se parties are at the mercy of the Clerk of the Court, who at least in N.D.Ga is corrupt.]
132. On September 28, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Submission of 01922 Docket #91 APPLICATION to Appeal in forma pauperis submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (kac) (Entered: 09/28/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
133. On September 28, 2011, 01922 Docket #92 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Orders and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 01922 Docket #90 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 09/28/2011.)
134. On September 28, 2011, 01922 Docket #93 FILING ORDER NO. 19 the Plaintiff is DENIED permission to file any attachments with the Notice of Appeal delivered to the Clerk on 9/27/11, and any Notice of Appeal filed hereafter in any of these cases. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/28/11. (dr) (Entered: 09/28/2011.)
[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. Judge Thomas W. Thrash is obstructing justice by blocking William M. Windsor from attaching documents that he is illegally omitting from the Court record. 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: 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.]
135. On September 28, 2011,the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #93 Order. (dr) (Entered: 09/28/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
136. On September 28, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Submission of 01922 Docket #91 APPLICATION to Appeal in forma pauperis submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (kac) (Entered: 09/28/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
137. On September 28, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #93 Order. (dr) (Entered: 09/28/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
138. On September 29, 2011, 01922 Docket #98 — ORDER denying 01922 Docket #91 Application to Appeal in forma pauperis. All pending Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis are DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Courts Order of August 11, 2011. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/28/2011. (rej) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
[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. 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.]
139. On September 29, 2011, 01922 Docket #95 — Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Orders and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 01922 Docket #94 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
140. On September 29, 2011,the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Submission of 01922 Docket #96 MOTION for Consent to File Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (kac) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
141. On September 29, 2011,the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #98 Order on Application to Appeal in forma pauperis. (rej) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
142. On September 29, 2011, 01922 Docket #99 — Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 01922 Docket #97 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
143. On September 29, 2011, 01922 Docket #101 — Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Judgment, Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 01922 Docket #100 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
144. On September 29, 2011, 01922 Docket #103 — Forwarded certified copy of Order DENYING Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal to USCA re: 01922 Docket #90 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 00-00000-00. (kac) (Entered: 09/29/2011.)
145. On October 4, 2011, 01922 Docket #104 — NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 01922 Docket #98 Order on Application to Appeal in forma pauperis, 01922 Docket #93 Order by William M. Windsor. Transcript Order Form due on 10/18/2011.(kac) (It was not docketed until 10/05/2011.) (105-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (105-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
146. On October 4, 2011, 01922 Docket #105 — APPLICATION to Appeal in forma pauperis by William M. Windsor. (kac) (It was not docketed until 10/05/2011.) (105-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (105-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
147. On October 4, 2011, 01922 Docket #107 — USCA Acknowledgment of 01922 Docket #90 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-14526-A. (kac) (It was not docketed until 10/07/2011.)
148. On October 5, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Submission of 01922 Docket #105 APPLICATION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (kac) (Entered: 10/05/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
149. On October 5, 2011, 01922 Docket #106 — Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Orders and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 01922 Docket #104 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 10/05/2011.)
150. On October 6, 2011, 01922 Docket #108 — USCA Acknowledgment of 01922 Docket #94 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-14572-A. (kac) (Entered: 10/07/2011.)
151. On October 6, 2011, 01922 Docket #109 — USCA Acknowledgment of 01922 Docket #97 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-14569-A. (kac) (Entered: 10/07/2011.)
152. On October 6, 2011, 01922 Docket #110 — USCA Acknowledgment of 01922 Docket #100 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-14567-A. (kac) (Entered: 10/07/2011.)
153. On October 11, 2011, 01922 Docket #111 — NOTICE Of Filing Court Transcript Order Information by William M. Windsor re: 01922 Docket #58 Notice of Appeal, 01922 Docket #71 Notice of Appeal, 01922 Docket #77 Notice of Appeal, 01922 Docket #94 Notice of Appeal, 01922 Docket #100 Notice of Appeal, 01922 Docket #90 Notice of Appeal and 01922 Docket #97 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (It was not docketed until 10/12/2011.) (111-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (111-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
154. On October 12, 2011, 01922 Docket #114 — USCA Acknowledgment of 01922 Docket #104 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA – 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 11-14572-A. (kac) (Entered: 10/17/2011.)
155. On October 17, 2011, 01922 Docket #112 — ORDER denying 01922 Docket #105 Application to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/14/11. (dr) (This was allegedly signed on October 14, 2011, but it was not docketed until 10/17/2011.)
[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. 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.]
156. On October 17, 2011, 01922 Docket #113 — ORDER the Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within 14 days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the remaining Defendants. The response is limited to 10 pages including any attachments. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/14/11. (dr) (This was allegedly signed on October 14, 2011, but it was not docketed or mailed until 10/17/2011.)
[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. This order completely violates William M. Windsor’s rights because a party is allowed a 25-page response and as many pages of exhibits as needed. By restricting William M. Windsor to 10 pages, Judge Thomas W. Thrash knew that there would not be enough pages to attach the evidence that was needed.]
157. On October 14, 2011, 01922 Docket #118 — Request for Consent to file MOTION to Strike by William M. Windsor. (dr) Modified on 10/27/2011 (dr). (This was not docketed until 10/27/2011.) (114-x1 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
158. On October 17, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #112 Order, 01922 Docket #113 Order to Show Cause. (dr) (Entered: 10/17/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
159. On October 18, 2011, 01922 Docket #115 — FILINGS ORDER NO. 10 denying 01922 Docket #96 Consent to File Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/17/11. (dr) (Entered: 10/18/2011.)
[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. There is no explanation, but the order does contain false extra-judicial information. 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.]
160. On October 18, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #115 Order. (dr) (Entered: 10/18/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
161. On October 20, 2011, 01922 Docket #119 — Request for Consent to File MOTION to Obtain Summons by William M. Windsor. (dr) (This was not docketed until 10/27/2011.) (119-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (119-x2 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
162. On October 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #116 — ORDER regarding 01922 Docket #119 Motion that the Clerk issue 119 summons to effectuate service upon the Defendants in these cases. Before the Clerk issues any summons naming a federal judge or employee of the federal courts (including the United States Attorney’s Office), the Plaintiff is ordered to post a $50,000.00 cash bond or corporate surety bond acceptable to the Clerk for each federal judge or employee of the federal courts to be served sufficient to satisfy any award of Rule 11 sanctions. Any attempt by the Plaintiff to serve a federal judge or employee of the federal courts without complying with this Order may be treated as contempt of court. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/26/2011. (rej) Modified related document on 10/27/2011 (dr). (Entered: 10/26/2011.)
[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. Judge Thomas W. Thrash issued an Order to Show Cause why actions filed by William M. Windsor should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint, but when William M. Windsor requested signed summons from the Clerk of the Court, they have refused to provide them. The ungodly bias of Judge Thomas W. Thrash is clearly demonstrated by his threat of contempt of court if William M. Windsor serves the Defendants! Judge Thomas W. Thrash has no legal right to interfere with service of process – NONE! 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.]
163. On October 26, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #116 Order. (rej) (Entered: 10/26/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
164. On October 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #117 — FILINGS ORDER NO. 23 denying 01922 Docket #118 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/26/2011. (rej) Modified related document on 10/27/2011 (dr). (Entered: 10/26/2011.)
[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. 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.]
165. On October 26, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #117 Order. (rej) (Entered: 10/26/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
166. On October 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #120 — NOTICE OF FILING Request for Consent to file Motion for Leave by William M. Windsor (dr) (Entered: 10/28/2011.)
[This was filed on October 26, 2011, but it was not shown on the Docket until October 28, 2011, and it did not show the correct filing date.] (123-x1 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
167. On October 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #121 — NOTICE FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE by William M. Windsor. (dr) (Entered: 10/28/2011.) (123-x1 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[This was filed on October 26, 2011, but it was not shown on the Docket until October 28, 2011, and it did not show the correct filing date.]
168. On October 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #122 — NOTICE Of Filing Request for Consent to file Motion for Reconsideration of Order to Show Cause by William M. Windsor (dr) (Entered: 10/28/2011.)
[This was filed on October 26, 2011, but it was not shown on the Docket until October 28, 2011, and it did not show the correct filing date.] (123-x1 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
169. On October 26, 2011, 01922 Docket #123 — William M. Windsor filed an EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of 01922 Docket #113 Order to Show Cause. (dr) (Entered: 10/28/2011.)
[This was filed on October 26, 2011, but it was not shown on the Docket until October 28, 2011, and it did not show the correct filing date.] (123-x1 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
170. On October 28, 2011, 01922 Docket #124— ORDER that the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Maid of the Mist Corporation and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this file. The Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any additional papers in this file other than a Notice of Appeal with no attachments. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/28/11. (dr) (Entered: 10/31/2011.)
[This order is an outrage. For starters, this appeared on the Docket late in the day on October 31, 2011 – after William M. Windsor filed his Response to the Order to Show Cause. Judge Thomas W. Thrash backdated this order to October 28, 2011 so he could pretend William M. Windsor’s Response to the Order to Show Cause and proof were never filed. Second, there was no basis to dismiss for failure to serve as the Defendants had full notice of the lawsuit and had been served. Third, the filing injunction made part of this order was issued without notice or an opportunity to be heard. Judge Thomas W. Thrash did this to keep William M. Windsor’s evidence from being part of the court record. 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 managed to commit hundreds of violations of the rules and criminal statutes in orchestrating this demonstration of judicial corruption. The totally illegal order denying William M. Windsor his legal right to file additional motions and documents is criminal.]
171. On October 31, 2011, William M. Windsor filed his response to the order to show cause.
[This has not been docketed. Judge Thomas W. Thrash simply destroyed these documents. This is the crime of obstruction of justice.] (124-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (124-x3 is the Delivery Confirmation for these papers that shows the signed receipt was obtained by the courier.)
[Violations of Georgia state laws by Judge Thomas W. Thrash are: 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: 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.]
172. On October 31, 2011, Affidavits of Service for Joel F. Dubina, Maid of the Mist Corporation, and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. were filed in the N.D.Ga. (124-x1 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent with these papers.) (124-x3 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. Violations of Georgia state laws by Judge Thomas W. Thrash are: 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: 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.]
173. On October 31, 2011, Affidavits of Service for Joel F. Dubina, Maid of the Mist Corporation, and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. were filed in the Fulton County Superior Court.
174. On October 31, 2011, unnumbered Docket entry says: Civil Case Terminated. (dr) (Entered: 10/31/2011.)
[Unnumbered entries are illegal according to the statutes and rules. Everything done in a case is supposed to be docketed and numbered.]
175. On October 31, 2011, 01922 Docket #125 — CLERK’S JUDGMENT dismissing case –. (dr)–Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist– (Entered: 10/31/2011.)
[This is not a valid order because it does not bear the seal of the court; this is a violation of the rules mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1691.]
176. On October 31, 2011, the Docket shows an unnumbered entry: Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 01922 Docket #124 Order, 01922 Docket #125 Clerk’s Judgment. (dr) (Entered: 10/31/2011.)
[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 5. The final tally is 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}