Bill Windsor files Motion Against Judge Thomas W Thrash

1-11-CV-01923-TWT – Motion for Reconsideration-2024-04-10

1-11-CV-01923-TWT-Letter-to-USDCNDGa-Clerk-filing-2024-04-10

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or “Plaintiff”) hereby files this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING LEAVE.

Windsor shows the Court as follows:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  1. On April 3, 2024, Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered this purported order [EXHIBIT A]:

“This is a pro se civil action filed against the former Clerk of Court, a number of his employees, judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and judges of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It is before the Court on various motions filed by the pro se Plaintiff. After a hearing and on motion of the United States of America, on July 15, 2011 the Court issued an injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing any additional Complaints against federal judges or employees of the federal judiciary without obtaining the consent of a federal judge in the district in which the action was to be filed. The injunction was issued because of the Plaintiff’s extraordinary abuse of the federal judicial system by repeatedly filing frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits against the judges assigned to his many cases, because of the burden to clerical and judicial operations caused by his voluminous frivolous filings, and because his continuing course of conduct had become an impediment to the administration of justice. The administration of justice would suffer irreparable harm if the Plaintiff is allowed to continue filing frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits against the judges and others involuntarily involved in his litigious campaigns. The balance of the harms and the public interest demanded that the Plaintiff be stopped.

“The Plaintiff’s most recent filings are more of the same. The Motion for Leave to Pursue Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Additional Causes of Action [Doc. 294] seeks permission to file a lawsuit against the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of his employees because of the Plaintiff’s unhappiness with how a petition for a writ of mandamus was handled by the Court. The Motion for Leave to file a Bivens Action against Judge Thomas W. Thrash [Doc. 295], and Motion for Leave to File Purported Injunctions [Doc. 296] seek permission to file a lawsuit against this Court for limiting the Plaintiff’s ability to file frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits against judges and other judicial officers. The Motion for Leave to Pursue Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Addition Causes of Action [Doc. 294] is DENIED. The Motion for Leave to file a Bivens Action against Judge Thomas W. Thrash [Doc. 295], and Motion for Leave to File Purported Injunctions [Doc. 296] are DENIED. The Court notes that the proposed Bivens action against it is clearly barred by the statute of limitations and absolute judicial immunity. Leave to file the proposed Complaints is DENIED.”

  1. On May 20, 2011, Windsor filed the Verified Complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County. The Civil Action was assigned No.
  2. On June 14, 2011, Windsor filed a Motion to Deny Removal and a RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. This was never addressed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, and he never addressed jurisdiction.  Therefore, this latest purported Order by Judge Thomas W. Thrash is a void order.
  3. Docket Numbers 294, 295, and 296 were not submitted to Judge Thomas W. Thrash. They were submitted to the Presiding Judge, Timothy Batten.
  1. THE ORDER IS DEFECTIVE AS JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH HAS NO JURISDICTION.
  2. On June 14, 2011, Windsor filed a Motion to Deny Removal and a RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. This was never addressed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, and he never addressed jurisdiction.
  3. The ORDER must be vacated.
  1. THE ORDER CITES NO CASE LAW AND NO STATUTE IN SUPPORT.
  2. The ORDER is completely void of any authority. Judge Thomas W. cited no case law and no Rules or other authority.
  3. The ORDER must be vacated.

III. THE MOTIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO PRESIDING JUDGE TIMOTHY BATTEN, NOT JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH.

  1. Docket Numbers 294, 295, and 296 were not submitted to Judge Thomas W. Thrash. They were submitted to the Presiding Judge, Timothy Batten. [EXHIBIT B.]
  1. WINDSOR HAS NEVER ABUSED THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AND JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH CAN CITE NO FACTS TO SHOW THAT HE DID.
  2. Judge Thomas W. Thrash falsely and maliciously wrote in this ORDER: “The injunction was issued because of the Plaintiff’s extraordinary abuse of the federal judicial system by repeatedly filing frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits against the judges assigned to his many cases.”
  3. Judge Thomas W. Thrash can cite no facts to support this outrageous claim.
  1. WINDSOR HAS NEVER FILED A FRIVOULOUS FILING. ALL OF HIS FILINGS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY RESEARCHED AND HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.
  2. Judge Thomas W. Thrash false, maliciously, and without factual support wrote in his ORDER: “…because of the burden to clerical and judicial operations caused by his voluminous frivolous filings, and because his continuing course of conduct had become an impediment to the administration of justice.”
  1. WINDSOR HAS NEVER FILED A malicious or vexatious lawsuit against anyone. ALL OF HIS FILINGS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY RESEARCHED AND HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.
  2. Judge Thomas W. Thrash false, maliciously, and without factual support wrote in his ORDER: “The administration of justice would suffer irreparable harm if the Plaintiff is allowed to continue filing frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits against the judges and others involuntarily involved in his litigious campaigns. The balance of the harms and the public interest demanded that the Plaintiff be stopped.”
  3. Judge Thomas W. Thrash is a corrupt judge who has committed one crime after another against Windsor. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET.]

VII.  WINDSOR HAS NEVER FILED A malicious or vexatious lawsuit against anyone.  ALL OF HIS FILINGS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY RESEARCHED AND HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.

  1. Judge Thomas W. Thrash maliciously and without factual support wrote in his ORDER: “The Plaintiff’s most recent filings are more of the same.”
  2. There are no facts to support this outrageous statement.

VIII.  WINDSOR HAS NOT SOUGHT TO PURSUE A LEGAL ACTION AGAINST the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of his employees because of the Plaintiff’s unhappiness with how a petition for a writ of mandamus was handled by the Court. HE SOUGHT IT DUE TO GROSS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND THE RULES.

  1. Judge Thomas W. Thrash maliciously and without factual support wrote in his ORDER: “The Motion for Leave to Pursue Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Additional Causes of Action [Doc. 294] seeks permission to file a lawsuit against the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of his employees because of the Plaintiff’s unhappiness with how a petition for a writ of mandamus was handled by the Court.”
  2. They violated the Rules and the law.  They likely committed criminal violations as well.
  1. WINDSOR HAS NOT SOUGHT TO PURSUE A LEGAL ACTION AGAINST JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH FOR IMPROPER PURPOSES. HE SOUGHT IT DUE TO GROSS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND THE RULES.
  2. Judge Thomas W. Thrash maliciously and without factual support wrote in his ORDER: “The Motion for Leave to file a Bivens Action against Judge Thomas W. Thrash [Doc. 295], and Motion for Leave to File Purported Injunctions [Doc. 296] seek permission to file a lawsuit against this Court for limiting the Plaintiff’s ability to file frivolous, malicious and vexatious lawsuits against judges and other judicial officers.”
  3. The United States Constitution gives pro se parties the right to file lawsuits, and this right may not be taken away absent a Constitutional amendment.
  1. WINDSOR HAS NOT SOUGHT TO PURSUE A LEGAL ACTION BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR A CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.
  2. Judge Thomas W. Thrash maliciously and without factual support wrote in his ORDER: “The proposed Bivens action against it is clearly barred by the statute of limitations and absolute judicial immunity.”
  3. The proposed action is not barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Thomas W. Thrash again makes such a claim with no legal authority cited.  State law establishes the statute of limitations, and this ORDER is yet another violation that will be subject to a claim for denial of Constitutional rights.
  4. There is no such thing as “absolute judicial immunity.” Judge Thomas W. Thrash again makes such a claim with no legal authority cited.
  1. THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The NOTICE OF removal is procedurally defective, and thE MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE ORDER MUST BE VACATED.
  2. The NOTICE OF REMOVAL had procedural defects that make it void on its face.
  3. There is a presumption against removal jurisdiction, and this Court must strictly construe the removal statute. (Fajen v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir.1982).) The party seeking removal has the burden of proving the jurisdictional and procedural requirements for removal. (Laughlin v. Prudential Ins. Co., 882 F.2d. 187 (5th Cir. 1989).)
  4. The NOTICE OF REMOVAL fails on all accounts, so the MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL must be granted, and the ORDER must be vacated.

XII.  THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The removal is procedurally defective FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT DEFENDANTS MUST MAKE AN APPEARANCE, and thE MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE ORDER MUST BE VACATED.

  1. None of the Defendants had made an appearance.
  2. None of the Defendants had filed a CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as required by N.D.Ga Local Rule 3.3 and FRCP 7.1, which was due to be filed with the Clerk “at the time of first appearance. [1-11-CV-0192-TWT Docket].
  3. The U.S. Attorneys, Sally Quillian Yates and Christopher Huber, had no authority to appear for the Defendants.
  4. Christopher Huber was representing one of the Defendants in two legal actions before Defendant Judge Duffey. There are an assortment of other conflicts that made it impossible for Christopher Huber to represent many of the Defendants.
  5. Nothing had been filed with any court giving the U.S. Attorneys the authority to appear for any of the Defendants.
  6. None of the Defendants were identified in the signature block on the NOTICE OF REMOVAL, so the Petition was not filed on behalf of any of the Defendants
  7. There is no indication that any of the Defendants have signed a sworn affidavit in regard to representation or the NOTICE OF REMOVAL.
  8. The ORDER must be vacated.

XIII. THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The removal is procedurally defective BECAUSE THE ACTION WAS NOT YET PENDING IN FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AS 28 U.S.C. § 1442 REQUIRES, SO THE MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE ORDER MUST BE VACATED.

  1. The removal statute requires service prior to removal in the state of Georgia. The removal statute states that an action must be “pending” in a state court before it may be removed.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (noting that civil action may be removed to the district court “embracing the place wherein it is pending”).
  2. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the word pending means “remaining undecided” or “awaiting decision.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (7th ed. 1999).  An action must have “commenced” before it can be “pending.”  A determination of whether the action was pending in a Georgia court at the time of removal requires reference to Georgia law.  Under Georgia law, “there is a substantial difference between the commencement of an action and its being a suit pending between the parties.” (McClendon v. Hernando Phosphate Co., 28 S.E. 152, 153 (Ga. 1897).)   Georgia law preserves this distinction, as filing a suit “is still not the commencement of suit unless followed by service within a reasonable time.” (Franek v. Ray, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (Ga. 1977).)  Thus, under Georgia law, “an action is not a ‘pending’ suit until after service of process is perfected.” (Steve A. Martin Agency, Inc. v. PlantersFIRST Corp., 678 S.E.2d 186, 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009); see also Jenkins v. Crea, 656 S.E.2d 849, 850 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (“An action is not a pending suit until service is perfected.”)
  3. Defendants Judge Julie E. Carnes, Judge Joel F. Dubina, Judge Ed Carnes, Judge Rosemary Barkett, and B. Grutby have not been served with process. Windsor also filed a motion with the Fulton County Superior Court seeking to add six additional Defendants.
  4. Since the Civil Action was not yet “pending” in Fulton County Georgia Superior Court, the text of the removal statute prevents removal prior to service on Judge Julie E. Carnes, Judge Joel F. Dubina, Judge Ed Carnes, Judge Rosemary Barkett, and B. Grutby. (28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).)

XIV.  THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The removal is procedurally defective FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE OF UNANIMITY, and this MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED.

  1. Another defect in the NOTICE OF REMOVAL is its failure to comply with the rule of unanimity.
  2. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) states that “defendants desiring to remove any civil action . . . shall file in the district court of the United States . . . a notice of removal.” There are 16 Defendants in this Civil Action, and all 16 Defendants have not filed the NOTICE OF REMOVAL.
  3. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires the unanimous consent of all defendants to the removal. (Russell Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 09/06/2001); Loftis v. U.S. Parcel Serv., Inc., 342 F.3d 509, 516 (6th Cir. 2003).)  The NOTICE OF REMOVAL failed to claim the consent of ANY Defendant, and it clearly fails to explain the absence of consent to the removal by at least nine of the Defendants, so it is defective for violating the rule of unanimity.  Since some of the Defendants did not join in the notice of removal and the NOTICE OF REMOVAL failed to account or the lack of their consent, the NOTICE OF REMOVAL is procedurally defective and cannot withstand the MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL.

“… all of the defendants must consent to removal.” (Wisc. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U. S. 381, 393 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).)

“The unanimity requirement mandates that in cases involving multiple defendants, all defendants must consent to removal.” Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1044 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 247-48, 20 S.Ct. 854, 855, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900) (deriving from a removal statute the rule that all defendants must join in removal)).  (See also In re Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp., 837 F.2d 432 (11th Cir. 01/19/1988); In re Ocean Marine Mut. Protection and Indem. Ass’n, Ltd., 3 F.3d 353, 355-56 (11th Cir. 1993); Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753, 754 (8th Cir. 2001); Balazik v. County of Dauphin, 44 F.3d 209, 213 (3d Cir. 1995); Doe v. Kerwood, 969 F.2d 165, 167 (5th Cir. 1992); Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986); N. Ill. Gas Co. v. Airco Indus. Gases, 676 F.2d 270, 272-73 (7th Cir.1982); Cornwall v. Robinson, 654 F.2d 685, 686 (10th Cir. 1981); 11C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3731 (3d. ed. 1998); Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 12/30/2009).)

  1. THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The removal is defective BECAUSE THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION, SO thE MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE ORDER MUST BE VACATED.
  2. This Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction because there is no dispute as to the validity, construction or effect of a federal statute with a cause of action “arising under” the laws of the United States.
  3. This Civil Action is pursuant to the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq. No federal statute has been included in the causes of action.
  4. There is no federal question presented on the face of the Verified Complaint. Windsor intends this Civil Action to be solely based on Georgia law.  Windsor specifically excluded federal statutes that could have been raised so this action would remain in Georgia courts.

Federal courts use the “well-pleaded complaint” rule to determine “arising under” jurisdiction. Long, 201 F.3d at 758. That rule provides that “‘federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Id. (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). “[T]he party who brings the suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon.” The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25 (1913).

This court has held that for a paper to fall within the removal statutes, it must be unambiguous. Cf. Akin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (10th Cir. 1998)

XVI.  THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The removal is defective PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 1442 (a)(1) BECAUSE FEDERAL OFFICERS HAVE NOT RAISED A FEDERAL DEFENSE, SO THE MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE ORDER MUST BE VACATED.

  1. The U.S. Attorney erroneously cited 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) as a basis for the removal.

28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) provides that “a civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress….”

  1. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) does not apply because the Verified Complaint is not about suing “in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or… under any Act of Congress….”

The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the jurisdictional provision found in 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) required federal officers to raise a federal defense before removing to federal court.  Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 109 S. Ct. 959, 103 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1989).

  1. None of the other Defendants raised any defense whatsoever to the Civil Action. The ONLY statement made by the U.S. Attorney in the NOTICE OF REMOVAL is: “This action is one that may be removed to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2679.”
  2. There is no citation of case law to support such a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) has nothing to do with defenses this Civil Action, so no defense has been raised.

The Supreme Court has held that “the right of removal [under § 1442(a)(1)] is absolute for conduct performed under color of federal office,” Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242, 101 S. Ct. 1657, 1664, 68 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1981), and that 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) “is broad enough to cover all cases where federal officers can raise a colorable defense arising out of their duty to enforce federal law.” Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 406-07, 89 S. Ct. 1813, 1816, 23 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1969). The Court agreed with the government that “the removal statute is an incident of federal supremacy, and that one of its purposes [is] to provide a federal forum for cases where federal officials must raise defenses arising from their official duties.” Willingham, 395 U.S. at 405, 89 S. Ct. at 1815.

The purpose of section 1442(a)(1) is to “permit[ ] the removal of those actions commenced in state court that expose a federal official to potential civil liability or criminal penalty for an act performed … under color of office.” Murray v. Murray, 621 F.2d 103, 107 (5th Cir.1980). In Willingham, the Supreme Court noted that “the removal statute is an incident of federal supremacy, and that one of its purposes was to provide a federal forum for cases where federal officials must raise defenses arising from their official duties.” 395 U.S. at 405, 89 S. Ct. at 1815. “The test for removal should be broader, not narrower, than the test for official immunity.” Id.

  1. The U.S. Attorney has failed to meet the Supreme Court’s stated requirements for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) that are binding precedents recognized by the Eleventh Circuit.

Proper removal of an action under section 1442(a)(1) has historically required the satisfaction of two separate requirements. First, the defendant must advance a “colorable defense arising out of [his] duty to enforce federal law.” Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 133, 109 S. Ct. 959, 966-67, 103 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1989) (quoting Willingham, 395 U.S. at 406-07, 89 S. Ct. at 1816). That defense need only be plausible; its ultimate validity is not to be determined at the time of removal. Id. at 129, 109 S. Ct. at 964. However, absent the assertion of a federal defense, a state court action against a federal officer is not removable. Id. [emphasis added.]

Second, the defendant must establish that there is a “causal connection between what the officer has done under asserted official authority” and the action against him. Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 33, 46 S. Ct. 185, 190, 70 L. Ed. 449 (1926) (interpreting predecessor statute); see also Willingham, 395 U.S. at 409, 89 S. Ct. at 1817. However, the Supreme Court has held that, in a civil suit such as this, it is sufficient for the defendant to show that his relationship to the plaintiff “derived solely from [his] official duties.” Willingham, 395 U.S. at 409, 89 S. Ct. at 1817. In such a case, the causal connection requirement “consists, simply enough, of the undisputed fact that [the defendant was] on duty, at [his] place of federal employment, at all the relevant times.” Id. If the question raised by the plaintiff is whether the defendant was engaged in “some kind of frolic,” or acting in contravention of his official duties, the parties will have the opportunity to present their versions of the facts to a federal court. Id. (Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 91 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir. 08/15/1996).)  [emphasis added.]

  1. It is impossible for a Defendant to raise a colorable defense to charges of racketeering as racketeering is not something that one may do under their federal employment.
  2. The federal interest in this matter is insubstantial, and the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction would disrupt the Congressionally-approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

“[F]ederal jurisdiction demands not only a contested federal issue, but a substantial one, indicating a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum.” Grable, 545 U.S. at 313. Those advantages are “the experience, solicitude, and hope of uniformity that a federal forum offers on federal issues.” Id. at 312.

More recently, in Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (C.A. 11, Dec. 19, 2008), plaintiffs brought, inter alia, a defamation claim based on the defendants’ statements that the plaintiffs had violated federal gun laws. See 552 F.3d at 1293-94. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that federal question jurisdiction was appropriate, concluding that the federal interest involved was insubstantial. See id. at 1301-03.

Ayres v. Gen. Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514, 518 (11th Cir. 2000) serves to illustrate this point.  In Ayres, the plaintiff brought suit under Georgia’s civil RICO statute, alleging that the defendant had violated the federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and, by so doing, had committed federal mail and wire fraud, which were predicate offenses constituting racketeering. See 234 F.3d at 516-17. The Eleventh Circuit found federal question jurisdiction was appropriate because “this case requires that we decide whether or not a breach of the disclosure duty under the [National Traffic and Motor Vehicle] Safety Act constitutes a federal mail and wire fraud crime.” Id. at 519. In other words, because the meaning of a federal statute was at issue, a substantial federal question was involved. See id.

(“[F]ederal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff’s cause of action has as an essential element the existence of a right under federal law which will be supported by a construction of the federal law concluding that the federal crime is established, but defeated by another construction concluding the opposite”). Where, however, “allegations of violations of federal law as predicate acts under a state RICO act” do not “require the court to interpret an independent federal statute,” federal question jurisdiction is inappropriate. See Austin v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 510 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1227-28 (N.D. Ga. 2007); accord, e.g., Neighborhood Mortgage, Inc. v. Fegans, No. 1:06-CV-1984-JOF, 2007 WL 2479205, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2007) (“Unlike Ayres where the court had to decide whether the federal mail and wire fraud statutes would also constitute a breach of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, where there is no other federal question, . . . the mere citation of federal mail and wire fraud as predicate acts to a state RICO action is not sufficiently substantial to confer federal jurisdiction”). [emphasis added.]

As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Adventure Outdoors: Ayres involved two levels of federal questions. The need to construe independent bodies of federal law and to determine the legal effect of the interaction of those two bodies of law made the federal question in Ayres far more substantial than the one presented by Adventure Outdoors’s defamation claim. 552 F.3d at 1302. The same is also true here because this matter has nothing to do with the construction of federal regulations. Consequently, this Court should decline to exercise federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim and remand this matter to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.

  1. This Court’s exercise of federal-question jurisdiction over this state-law claim would be inappropriate because there is no dispute as to any federal statute.

“‘A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal

jurisdiction.’” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11thCir. 2008) (quoting Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002)). “All doubts about the propriety of federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Id. (citing Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996)); accord Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand”).

The test for whether federal jurisdiction should be exercised over embedded federal issues in state-law claims between non-diverse parties is whether “a state law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005).

 

  1. In this matter, NO federal issue exists. There is no disputed question of federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims is confined to those claims that “‘really and substantially involv[e] a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of [federal] law.’” Grable, 545 U.S. at 313 (quoting Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569 (1912)). (See also Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Tashman, 318 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (Vinson, J., dissenting).)

  1. This Civil Action does not seek to hold an officer of the United States in violation of state law while simultaneously executing his duties as prescribed by federal law. In this Civil Action, federal employees ignored the limitations on their powers.  They intentionally committed acts that violate the Georgia RICO Act, and they knowingly participated in an enterprise designed to damage Windsor.  It is well established that a federal employee’s actions lie outside the scope of his or her authority when he or she fails to comply with the affirmative requirements of the law.

we look to (1) whether the officers were acting “within the outer perimeter of [their] line of duty” as defined by federal statutory and regulatory law, Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed. 2d 1434 (1959) (plurality opinion), and (2) whether “in doing [those acts, they] did no more than what was necessary and proper for [them] to do” as demarcated by the Constitution, see Neagle, 135 U.S. at 57, 10 S.Ct. at 666. As the Supreme Court explained, “a federal official may not with impunity ignore the limitations which the controlling law has placed on his powers.” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 489, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2902, 57 L.Ed. 2d 895 (1978). Indeed, it is a tautology that a federal officer’s actions lie outside the scope of his authority when the officer fails to comply with the affirmative requirements of federal statutory or regulatory law, see id. at 489–91, 98 S.Ct. at 2902–03; Castro v. United States, 560 F.3d 381, 390–91 (5th Cir. 2009); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 837 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir.1988), and his actions fail to qualify as “necessary and proper” if committed in violation of the negative injunctions of the Constitution, see Butz, 438 U.S. at 489–91, 98 S.Ct. at 2902–03; Castro, 560 F.3d at 389; Medina, 259 F.3d at 225; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 800 F.2d at 1196; see also Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689–90, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1461, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170–71 (1803).

XVII.  THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The removal is defective PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C §2679 BECAUSE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES WHEN THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES TO DAMAGE WINDSOR, SO THE MOTION TO DENY REMOVAL MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE ORDER MUST BE VACATED.

  1. The Defendants were not acting within the scope of their official duties when they committed acts of racketeering against Windsor.
  2. The Verified Complaint specifies violation of the following Georgia statutes as the sole basis for the RICO claim: Obstruction of Justice and Tampering with Evidence pursuant to O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Perjury – Violation of C.G.A. 16-10-70; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A.16-10-93; Theft by Deception – O.C.G.A.16-8-3.

In Mesa v. California, the Supreme Court denied removal under the federal officer removal statute to two postal employees, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because they failed to establish that they were acting within the scope of their official duties and therefore, had no colorable federal defense to the state law charges of reckless driving and related offenses. 489 U.S. 121, 127–28, 109 S.Ct. 959, 963–64, 103 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1989). Because the federal employees’ actions fell outside the scope of their federal duties, California’s interest in vindicating the rights of its citizens did not frustrate any valid federal interest. (Denson v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 07/15/2009).)

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and doubt is resolved in favor of remand. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979); Prize Frize Inc. v. Matrix Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999).

  1. The question of whether an employee’s conduct was within the scope of his employment “is governed by the law of the state where the incident occurred.” See S.J. & W. Ranch, 913 F.2d at 1542; Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857, 76 S. Ct. 100, 100 L. Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam), vacating 215 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1954); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Georgia law does not permit anyone to violate the Georgia RICO Act.  Georgia law says the conduct must be within the general duties of employment for which the employee was hired, and none of the Defendants were hired with duties to violate criminal statutes and commit racketeering.
  2. The U.S. Attorney is not impartial; the U.S. Attorneys are “interested parties.” The U.S. Attorneys are representing some of the Defendants in related matters against Windsor.

Moreover, the statutory interpretation urged by defendant Lehtinen is particularly suspect because it leaves the determination of a dispositive issue in FTCA cases to an interested party. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(c), the Attorney General is required to “defend any civil action or proceeding brought in any court against any employee of the Government . . . for any such damage or injury.” Id. We do not believe Congress intended to entrust the party responsible for providing the federal employee’s defense with the power to make a scope determination that will have the result of dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. Nasuti, 906 F.2d at 812-13; Petrousky, 728 F. Supp. at 894; see Gogek, 729 F. Supp. at 933. Our concern with the impartiality of the scope determination is especially acute in a situation like the one in this case where the authority to make scope certifications has been delegated to the federal employee defendant or his colleagues. (S.J. & W. Ranch Inc. v. Lehtinen, 913 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 10/10/1990).)

  1. This Civil Action is about the corrupt practices of the Defendants, using the federal court system in Fulton County Georgia to commit criminal acts against Windsor and others. Windsor must argue that under these circumstances, this Civil Action could not be moved to the same federal court system that Windsor is suing.  The very clerks that Windsor has charged with racketeering are the clerks who will be handling the various filings in this matter.  The judges named as Defendants are friends of this Court.  Windsor can be treated fairly and impartially only if he is on the neutral turf of the Fulton County Superior Court.

XVIII.  THIS COURT IMPROPERLY OVERLOOKED THAT The POSITION OF THE U.S. ATTORNEYS IN THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS SUBJECT TO LITIGATION, AND IF THIS COURT DOES NOT DENY REMOVAL AND DOES NOT VACATE THE ORDER FOR THE REASONS SPECIFIED ABOVE, WINDSOR DEMANDS DISCOVERY AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

  1. Should this Court ignore and fail to deny removal on the grounds specified above, the district court must conduct a de novo hearing on whether the Defendants were not acting within the scope of their official duties when they committed acts that Windsor complains of in the Verified Complaint. This Court must permit Windsor full discovery on the scope question. (J. & W. Ranch Inc. v. Lehtinen, 913 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 10/10/1990).)

 

XIX.  THIS COURT VIOLATED FRCP RULE 7.1 AND DENIED WINDSOR’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS BY GRANTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S MOTION.

  1. The U.S. Attorney’s Motion was not an emergency motion, and it was not expedited.
  2. D.Ga. Local Rule 7.1 gave Windsor 14 days to respond to the U.S. Attorney’s motion.
  3. This Court denied Windsor’s right to file a response before the Court considered the motion.

64.             When attorneys have motions filed against their clients by a pro se party, the attorneys are given the opportunity to present their arguments to the judge in a response.  Windsor is pro se, and he has been denied this right of due process.  He has been treated as a different class of litigant, and he has been denied equal protection.  Windsor has a Constitutional guarantee that he will not be denied protections under the law that are enjoyed by attorneys, but this Court has violated Windsor’s Constitutional rights.  This Court has also denied due process.If due process is to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power unrestrained by established principles of private rights and distributive justice. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).) In 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).)   As construed by the courts, due process includes… the opportunity to be heard …  and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.  (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970).) (See also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).) “…wherever it is necessary for the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought.”  (Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701, 708.) “The constitutional right to be heard is a basic aspect of the duty of government to follow a fair process of decision making when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions.  The purpose of this requirement is not only to ensure abstract fair play to the individual.  Its purpose, more particularly, is to protect his use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment. . . .”’  (Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 -81 (1972).)

  1. WINDSOR HAD NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE ANYTHING.

65.             There is no valid order requiring Windsor to seek leave.

 

CONCLUSION

  1. Judge Thomas W. Thrash has made statements in this ORDER that are false, malicious, and not supported by any facts in the case. The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking removal, and Defendants failed to carry this burden and Judge Thomas W. Thrash intentionally violated the law and the Rules.  Absent a valid Notice of Removal, this Court had no jurisdiction to grant any motion by the Federal Defendants.
  2. This Court denied Windsor’s most basic fundamental rights to due process.

68.             There is no valid order requiring Windsor to seek leave.

  1. For all of the reasons expressed above, this Court must VACATE THE ORDER.

WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests:

  1. grant this Motion;
  2. vacate the ORDER dated April 3, 2024; and

c.      grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of April, 2024.

_______________________________

William M. Windsor

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-661-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

VERIFICATION OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

I, William M. Windsor, swear that I am authorized to make this verification and that the facts alleged in the foregoing MOTION are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters I believe them to be true.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

This 10th day of April, 2024,

_______________________________

William M. Windsor

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-661-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

As required by Local Rule 7.1D, N.D. Ga., I hereby certify that this pleading has been prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font, one of the font and point selections approved by this Court in Local Rule 5.1B, N.D. Ga.

_______________________________

William M. Windsor

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-661-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing MOTION to each Defendant by mail with sufficient postage addressed with the addresses for service shown in the Verified Complaint and by mail and email to:

CHRISTOPHER J. HUBER

ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

Georgia Bar No. 545627

600 Richard B. Russell Federal Bldg.

75 Spring Street, S.W. — Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Telephone: 404-581-6292 — Facsimile: 404-581-6181

Email: chris.huber@usdoj.gov

This 10th day of April, 2024,

_______________________________

William M. Windsor

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-661-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

Bill Windsor Charged with Crimes by Sage Dental

On April 10, 2024, Bill Windsor was charged with crimes by Sage Dental in The Villages Florida.

Sage Dental calls police to charge Bill Windsor with a crime
Sage Dental – Scene of the Crimes

On 4/10/2024, 75-year-old disabled veteran Bill Windsor hobbled into the offices of Sage Dental on Warm Springs Drive in The Villages Florida to deliver an envelope of medical records.

Bill Windsor had been emailing and calling Sage Dental for a month or so with every attempted contact ignored.  No response to emails.  No return calls to voicemail messages.  No response to regular mail.

William Michael Windsor had been charged $226 by Sage Dental when they used a bogus code with Humana so Humana wouldn’t pay.  All Bill Windsor wanted was a proper code so he would get a refund and so a cleaning was shown in 2023 as required by insurance companies.  If you don’t get a cleaning annually, medicare supplement insurance plans will never again pay.

Sage Dental Office Empty in The Villages Florida
Sage Dental Office Empty

When Bill Windsor arrived, Sage Dental was empty.

Sage Dental Envelope Delivered
Sage Dental Envelope Delivered

Bill Windsor placed his delivery on the desk at the entrance and sat down next to a woman wearing an Angel baseball cap.

Sage Dental employee refusing to accept envelope delivered by Bill Windsor
Sage Dental employee refusing to accept delivery

When a Sage Dental employee appeared all dressed in black, she ignored him and refused to accept the delivery.  She said he could wait until 2:00 p.m. when the manager would return.  She turned her back and walked away.

Sage Dental employee calling police
Bill Windsor Charged with Crimes by Sage Dental

An extremely antagonistic Sage Dental employee dressed in blue appeared and asked Bill Windsor to leave.  He explained that he is a patient and was there to deliver medical records.  She said she was not authorized to receive deliveries.  Next thing you know, she was calling the police. Bill Windsor Charged with Crimes by Sage Dental.

Robin Wakelin Sage Dental
Robin Wakelin Sage Dental

Bill Windsor believes the woman in blue is Office Manager Robin Wakelin.  The woman in blue is a liar and appears to be a member of a Criminal Racketeering Enterprise.

Police at Sage Dental in The Villages Florida
Police at Sage Dental in The Villages Florida

Two Wildwood Police Officers appeared.  They said they were there because of a complaint for trespassing and harassment.  Bill Windsor Charged with Crimes by Sage Dental.  The male officer asked the woman in blue what she wanted him to do.  This appeared to Bill Windsor to be the next step before arrest.

Bill Windsor didn’t have a computer, so he was unaable to check the law.  But, it is clear that he had not committed trespassing.  https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2020/810.09

The statute says it is a misdemeanor if a person defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person.  Bill Windsor was not ordered to leave, and the woman in blue had told him she was not authorized.

It is also clear that he had not committed haraassment.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2019/784.048

“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.  Bill Windsor did nothing to emotionally distress the woman in blue or anyone else.  His legitimate purpose was to deliver an envelope of records.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0877/Sections/0877.03.html

Bill Windsor did not disturb the peace.  A woman seated across from him in the lobby said so.

Sage Dental office in The Villages Florida

Sage Dental office in The Villages Florida – do not ever go there.  Bill Windsor will file a civil complaint against Sage Dental, the woman in black, the woman in blue, Dr. Angelica Mena, Kayla Tapper, Robin Wakelin, James Boardwine, and unnamed Doe Defendants.  Bill Windsor believes this is organized crime.

Bill Windsor seeks Injunction Amendment

thrash-thomas

Bill Windsor seeks Injunction Amendment for corrupt acts of Judge Thomas W. Thrash.

The Clerk of Court finally docketed this today — Bill Windsor seeks Injunction Amendment:

 

1-11-CV-01923-TWT-Request-for-Leave-to-Amend-Injunctionc-FILESTAMPED-2024-03-15

Bill Windsor seeks Injunction Amendment for corrupt acts of Judge Thomas W. Thrash.

 

 

Windsor Petition for Rehearing En Banc

The following is the Windsor Petition for Rehearing En Banc.  It was copied and pasted here from the Federal Court document.  This Petition for Rehearing En Banc shows how judges ignore the law to screw a self-represented litigant (pro se).  (It may be easier to read the Petition from the pdf scanned by the Eleventh Circuit.

Judges nationwide HATE Bill Windsor because he is committed to exposing their evildoings.  See https://AANL.net for his latest plan to save America from judicial corruption and denial of our Constitutional rights.  He has published thousands of articles on LawlessAmerica.com since 2008.  He is not a lawyer, and he cannot give legal advice, but he can and does help his friends with his experience.

Please forgive the spacing and numbering because Word and WordPress just don’t always cooperate.  Photos and links have been added that are not in the legal Petition.

APPEAL NO. 22-12038 and 22-12411

_______________________________________________________

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________________________________________

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

versus

James N. Hatten, et al,

Defendants

________________________________________________________

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-CV-01923-TWT

Judge Thomas Woodrow Thrash

thrash-thomas

_________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

bill windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Avenue PMB 1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

Phone: 352-###-####, Email: windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

PRO SE FOR PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT, WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING

and en banc determination

William M. Windsor (“WINDSOR”) hereby requests that the Court relieve WINDSOR from the Judgment and OPINION dated 1/25/2024 in USCA11 Case No. 22-12038 and USCA11 Case No. 22-12411, pursuant to Rules 35 and 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”).

  1. WINDSOR references and incorporates herein the entire dockets and their contents in 1-11-01923-TWT (”01923”) [APPENDIX 128], USCA11 Case 22-12038 (“22-12038”) [APPENDIX 129, and USCA11 Case 22-12411 (“22-12411”) [APPENDIX 130.]

FIRST PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT OVERLOOKED OR MISAPPREHENDED

BY THE SECOND PANEL

  1. The decisions of the “SECOND PANEL” of the Eleventh Circuit (Judges Robin Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Branch, and Britt Grant) conflict with decisions of every U.S. Court of Appeals, recent decisions in this case [APPENDIX 131 and APPENDIX 132], and Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir. 1993); Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1079 (11th Cir. 1986); Riccard v. Prudential,307 F.3d 1277, 1295 n.15 (11th Cir. 2002); Klay v. United, 376 F.3d 1092, 1099-1102 (11th Cir. 2004); Dinardo v. Palm Beach Judge, 199 Fed.Appx. 731 (11th Cir. 07/18/2006).  Consideration by the full Court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions.

Judge Britt Grant

  1. The one Appealed Order in 22-12411 is APPENDIX 135. It purports to place restrictions on state courts, so the Appeal must be granted.
  2. The four appealed orders in 22-12038 are APPENDIX 137, APPENDIX 4, APPENDIX 138, and APPENDIX 135. Each purports to place restrictions on state courts, so the Appeals must be granted.
  3. Article Three of the U.S. Constitution empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law. Article 3 grants no powers over state courts; a federal order for filing restrictions cannot apply to states.
  4. WINDSOR has researched “filing restrictions” referencing the three key federal precedents. The decisions in all eleven Circuits appear to be unanimous in providing that federal courts are unable to approve federal courts issuing orders that apply to state courts.
  5. BUT, there is one and only one circuit that has allowed a federal judge to approve federal courts issuing orders that apply to state courts. It’s the 11TH CIRCUIT, but only in appeals involving WINDSOR.
  6. WINDSOR could find NO OTHER CASE to support the actions of JUDGE Thomas W. THRASH. There has never been another appellate decision that disagrees with Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 191-92 (5th Cir. 2008); Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1344 (10th Cir. 2006); and Martin-Trigona v. Lavien, 737 F.2d 1254, 1263 (2d Cir. 1984).  See also Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107 (11th Cir. 05/20/1985)APPENDIX 21 is a Memorandum of Law on 137 applicable federal cases as of 08/08/2020.

SECOND PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The SECOND PANEL violated the September 7, 2022 Order of this Court [APPENDIX 131] and ignored the Law of the Case Doctrine.
  2. The SECOND PANEL has outrageously dismissed WINDSOR’s appeals [APPENDIX 133] and [APPENDIX 134] falsely claiming he abandoned them.
  3. WINDSOR has been pursuing the corrupt acts of JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Eleventh Circuit, for 15 years. He has never abandoned anything.
  4. From the first sentence in the Opinions, the SECOND PANEL has shown they have a complete bias against WINDSOR.
  5. The STATEMENTS REGARDING APPEAL [APPENDIX 139] and [APPENDIX 140] were required to establish that the Appeals were not frivolous, and it was determined by Eleventh Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill A. Pryor, and Andrew L. Brasher (“FIRST PANEL”) on 9/7/2022 that the appeals were not frivolous. [APPENDIX 133] and [APPENDIX 134]. They ruled:

“With respect to both the appeal statement associated with appeal no. 22-12038 and the appeal statement associated with appeal no. 22-12411, the Court finds that Appellant has raised a non-frivolous issue, specifically whether a pre-filing injunction may be extended to filings in state court. See, e.g., Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F .3d 181, 192 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, these appeals survive the frivolity screening required by this Court’s December 21, 2011 order.” [emphasis added.] [22-12038-Docket-13-ORDER-Not-Frivolous-Stay-Consolidated-2022-09-07.] [APPENDIX 131.]

  1. Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F .3d 181, 192 (5th Cir. 2008) was cited by the FIRST PANEL. It says:

“The district court abused its discretion in extending the pre-filing injunction to filings in state courts, state agencies, and this Court.

“Baum argues that even if the injunction is proper for federal courts, ‘[a]buse of state judicial process is not per se a threat to the jurisdiction of Article III courts and does not per se implicate other federal interests.’  Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d at 1263.

“In Martin-Trigona, the Second Circuit concluded that the district court ‘erred in its blanket extension of the [pre-filing] injunction to state courts….’ [737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984).]

Blue Moon does not cite to any authority that upholds a federal court’s pre-filing injunction against state court and state agency filings.

“The Tenth Circuit held that (2) a district court’s pre-filing injunction may not extend to filings in any federal appellate court, and (3) a district court’s pre-filing injunction may not extend to filings in any state court. Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1344 (10th Cir.2006).”

  1. Yet in the first sentence of the OPINIONS, the SECOND PANEL stated: “This appeal is the latest in a line of frivolous litigation pursued by William Windsor.” There is no evidence of this.  This violates Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) Rule 602.  This DIRECTLY contradicts the 9/7/2022 Order of the Eleventh Circuit [APPENDIX 131.]
  2. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that WINDSOR has ever filed anything in any court anywhere that was frivolous. This SECOND PANEL cannot show evidence to the contrary.
  3. The Eleventh Circuit decided that issue in these cases on 9/7/2022. The “law of the case doctrine” provides that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the court on appeal in any subsequent retrial or appeal involving the same case and substantially the same facts. The appellate court’s holdings on the questions presented to it on review become the “law of the case.” The purpose of the doctrine is to promote finality and judicial economy by minimizing unnecessary relitigation of legal issues once they have been resolved by the appellate court.  Instead, the SECOND PANEL thumbed its nose at judicial economy and created unnecessary litigation.
  4. WINDSOR will file Judicial Complaints against Robin Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Branch, and Britt Grant.

 

THIRD PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The Second Panel did not issue an Opinion on one of the Appealed Orders.
  2. On Page 6 of [APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134] in the next to last paragraph of the “Background” section, each states: “… his appeals were allowed to proceed as to the district court’s May 21, 2022, and June 30, 2022, orders.”
  3. There is no May 21, 2022 Order as proven by the dockets. [APPENDIX 128, APPENDIX 129, APPENDIX 130.] Therefore, one of the orders appealed has not been addressed, and this PETITION must be granted.

 

FOURTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The SECOND PANEL’s Opinions cause significant confusion as to what in the world they are pretending to say.
  2. On January 25, 2024, an OPINION was docketed in USCA11 Case 22-12038 (“22-12038”) – DOCKET 50 [APPENDIX 133] and USCA11 Case 22-12411 (“22-12411”) [APPENDIX 134] by this SECOND PANEL
  3. A JUDGMENT was also docketed in both cases as shown on the Dockets. [APPENDIX 129 and APPENDIX 130.]
  4. The File Stamp at the top of each page docketed in 22-12038 on APPENDIX 129 says “USCA11 Case 22-12038.”
  5. The File Stamp at the top of each page docketed in 22-12411 on APPENDIX 130 says “USCA11 Case 22-12038.”
  6. The Case Numbers on both APPENDIX 132 and APPENDIX 133 show BOTH Case Numbers on Page 2 of USCA11 Document 51-1.

 

FIFTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. Only two cases were cited by the SECOND PANEL in the OPINIONS.  Neither is applicable to the instant case.
  2. One of the two cases was cited by the Appellees in the BRIEF OF APPELLEE. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 – DOCKET 39.] [APPENDIX 141] Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) appears on PP.6–7 of the OPINION [APPENDIX 133] and on P.12 of the BRIEF OF APPELLEE [APPENDIX 141]. The Sapuppo Order [APPENDIX 142] briefly references Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008) [APPENDIX 143,P.3.]
  3. None of WINDSOR’s authority was cited by the SECOND PANEL. WINDSOR cited 58 cases, eight statutes, and other authorities in his NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 17 and APPENDIX 25]; 88 cases, 13 statutes, and nine other authorities in his APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146]; 36 cases, three statutes, and three other authorities in his APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF [APPENDIX 144.]
  4. Timson v. Sampson was cited by the SECOND PANEL [OPINION, PP.7-8] APPENDIX 143] as purported authority that WINDSOR abandoned his claims:

“Although “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” we

nonetheless deem “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant . . . abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.” Id.”

 

  1. But the SECOND PANEL misrepresented the facts and what Timson actually provides that is relevant to the instant case.
  2. Timson v. Sampson [APPENDIX 143] actually says:

“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, Lorisme v. I.N.S., 129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1997), issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.  Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2002).

Moreover, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.  Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003).  Timson, thus, abandoned this issue.” [emphasis added.]

 

  1. Lovett v. Ray, says: “Because he raises that argument for the first time in his reply brief, it is not properly before us.” [emphasis added.] [APPENDIX 145.]
  2. WINDSOR raised this issue from Day 1. In WINDSOR’s 420-page APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF [APPENDIX 144], he begins by saying “This Court must base its analysis on the 2011 and 2018 orders, and he explains why.  The SECOND PANEL ignored all of this.
  3. WINDSOR PLAINLY AND PROMINENTLY RAISED ISSUES IN HIS REPLY BRIEF in all caps, bold type, and underlined:
  • THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ORDERS EXHIBIT-1 1-026 AND EXHIBIT-11-048 (“APPEALED ORDERS” THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF MUST BE DISREGARDED AS TO ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO BE CLAIMS OF FACT. But, Factual Basis was raised on P.8 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 25].  This violates FRE Rule 602.

 

  • AS THE BRIEF IS UNSWORN, AND THERE IS NO FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR ANY CLAIMS OF FACT. Factual Basis was raised on P.8 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 25].  This violates FRE Rule 602.
  • EXHIBITS TO THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF MUST BE DISREGARDED AS THEY ARE UNAUTHENTICATED. Factual Basis was raised on P.8 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 25].  This violates FRE Rule 901.
  • THIS COURT INCORRECTLY HELD THAT IT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER WINDSOR’S CHALLENGES TO DISTRICT COURT’S 2011 AND 2018 ORDERS. See STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL PP.7-8; APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.
  • APPELLEE’S BRIEF ISSUE #1: THIS COURT DOES NOT LACK JURISDICTION OVER WINDSOR’S APPEAL OF THE 2022 ORDERS AS THE APPELLEES HAVE FALSELY CLAIMED.
  • APPELLEE’S BRIEF ISSUE #2: THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER WINDSOR’S APPEAL OF THE 2022 ORDERS. See APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.
  • APPELLEE’S BRIEF ISSUE #3: WINDSOR DID NOT ABANDON A CHALLENGE TO THE 2022 ORDERS BY FAILING TO IDENTIFY ANY LEGAL ERRORS SPECIFIC TO THOSE ORDERS AS THE APPELLEES HAVE FALSELY STATED. See APPENDIX 141, PP.1-12.

 

  1. WINDSOR identified all the legal errors that applied to the 2022 orders.
  2. The terms are very clear “…filing any complaint or initiating any proceeding, including any new lawsuit or administrative proceeding [APPELLANT’S BRIEF] [APPENDIX 146-P.13-¶99.]
  3. The APPEALED ORDERS have nothing to do with filing a complaint, filing a new lawsuit, or filing an administrative proceeding. A Texas application for guardianship in an existing probate court matter is not the filing of a lawsuit and is not an administrative proceeding. And it is a matter over which JUDGE THRASH has no jurisdiction.
  4. Contrary to the outlandish claim of the APPELLEES, this clearly explains why the 2022 Orders are void. WINDSOR explained that the so-called permanent injunctions do not restrict a Texas application for guardianship in an existing probate court matter as it is not the filing of a lawsuit and is not an administrative proceeding.
  5. See APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xxvii, P.l,¶¶25-26. See P.3,¶38: Neither the motion to deny removal nor jurisdiction were ever addressed by JUDGE THRASH in 01923.
  6. WINDSOR has never filed anything frivolous, and he has not abused the federal judicial system.
  7. The U.S. Attorney continues to violate the Constitution and the law by claiming a federal judge has jurisdiction over state court matters.

 

SIXTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDERS ARE VOID AND INVALID.

See STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL P.7; APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.

 

SEVENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

WINDSOR AND HIS ACQUAINTANCES WERE DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 

See STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL P.9; APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146],P.xvi.

 

EIGHTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF LAW

AND FACT

WINDSOR ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, MORE THAN ADEQUATELY BRIEFED HIS CLAIM.  HE PLAINLY AND PROMINENTLY RAISED IT BY DEVOTING DISCRETE SECTIONS OF HIS ARGUMENT.

 

  1. This SECOND PANEL either didn’t review the filings or corruptly invented an issue that does not exist. [OPINION – APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134, P.6, II. Discussion, ¶1.]
  2. The FRAP requires that an APPELLANT’S BRIEF be filed, and on 6/7/2023, WINDSOR filed 65 pages verified under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 USC 1746. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 APPENDIX 146], P.65.] It identifies and attaches a copy of the Order Appealed. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34] [APPENDIX 146, P.45,¶¶98,100.]  It is titled “APPEAL NO. 22-12038-J AND 22-12411-J.”
  3. The APPELLANT’S BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34, P.xv] [APPENDIX 146] has a major heading “ARGUMENT” and five arguments PLAINLY AND PROMINENTLY identified:
  • A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF STATE COURTS, SO ALL OF THE APPEALS MUST BE GRANTED. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.]
  • ALL ORDERS OF JUDGE THRASH MUST BE DECLARED VOID BECAUSE FEDERAL COURT ORDERS ARE VOID WHEN JURISDICTION IS NEVER DETERMINED. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.]
  • JUDGE THRASH’S FEDERAL COURT ORDERS PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF STATE COURTS ARE VOID ORDERS. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], PP.xv-xvi.]
  • IN GEORGIA, A PARTY APPLYING FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES OF THE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF A SPOUSE. SO DENIAL OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS TO WINDSOR WAS UNLAWFUL. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], P.xvi.]
  • Windsor’s constitutional due process rights have been violated, so the appeals must be granted. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146, P.xvi.]
  1. WINDSOR has filed detailed information with this Court in the Statement of Appeal, Notice of Appeal, Responses to Questions from the Clerk, Appellant’s Brief, and Appellant’s Reply Brief. Virtually everything he has filed has been sworn under penalty of perjury.
  2. As to the June 30, 2022 Order of Judge Thomas W. Thrash [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17] is the “NOTICE OF APPEAL.” FRAP Rule 3 requires that such a Notice must be filed to initiate an appeal, and WINDSOR filed it on 7/18/2022.  It identifies and attaches a copy of the Order Appealed. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278, P.1.] [APPENDIX 17.]  It lists the Constitutional rights violated. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.1-2.]
  3. It raised the following:
    1. THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER IS VOID AND INVALID. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.4-5.]
    2. WINDSOR AND HIS ACQUAINTANCES WERE DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.6-8.]
    3. THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ORDER. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], P.8.]
    4. THE ORDER IS VAGUE, AND IT IS TOO BROAD. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.8-10.]
    5. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO ISSUE ORDERS ON STATE COURT MATTERS. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.10-12.]
    6. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO ISSUE ORDERS DENYING LEGAL RIGHTS TO ACQUAINTANCES OF WINDSOR [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.12-13.]
  4. The 7/26/2022 “STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL” [APPENDIX 147] was required to establish that the Appeal was not frivolous, and it was so determined. It identified and attached a copy of the Order Appealed. [APPENDIX 147, P.13.]  APPENDIX 147 provided a concise summary of the issues.
  5. It raised the following:

 

NINTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The Judgment is VOID.
  2. A court must have jurisdiction to enter a valid, enforceable judgment on a claim. Where jurisdiction is lacking, litigants may retroactively challenge the validity of a judgment. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction.]
  3. WINDSOR has consistently denied jurisdiction for 12+ Years. [APPENDIX 128.]
  4. The requirement that a court have subject-matter jurisdiction means that the court can only assume power over a claim that it is authorized to hear under the laws of the jurisdiction. All Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. They only have the power to hear cases that arise under federal law, The instant case was brought in state court for violation of Georgia statutes and has no grant of subject matter jurisdiction.  [APPENDIX 19.]  See Const. Art. III, Sec. 2.
  5. A threshold concern for all federal courts is the presence, or absence, of Constitutional standing. The standing requirement does not exist in the instant case.  Subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist in the absence of constitutional standing. This restriction prevents courts—whose members are not elected and are therefore not politically accountable—from influencing the law in a legislative capacity. In this sense, the standing doctrine and subject-matter jurisdiction facilitate the separation of powers.
  6. Under federal question jurisdiction, a litigant—regardless of the value of the claim—may bring a claim in federal court if it arises under federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. See 28 USC 1331. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal element appears on the face of a well-plead complaint, and it does not
  7. The jurisdictional division between state and federal tribunals is an essential component of American federalism. Federalism is the Constitutional division of power between state governments and the federal government of the United States.
  8. Article Three of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law. There is no federal law regarding guardianship of state citizens.
  9. Federal case law establishes that a federal judge has no jurisdiction over state courts, and a federal order for filing restrictions cannot apply to state courts. There are many 11TH CIRCUIT precedents.  See Paragraph 3 above.

 

TENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. Applying the Judgment prospectively is no longer equitable.
  2. In addition to the many other issues, WINDSOR is in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and has no access to funds required by the purported Injunction.
  3. The JUDGMENT closes the courthouse doors to WINDSOR, which is a significant violation of Constitutional rights.

 

ELEVENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

Judge Elizabeth BranchJudge Robin RosenbaumJudge Britt Grant

  1. The SECOND PANEL appears to WINDSOR to be totally corrupt.
  2. The U.S. Constitution does not give federal judges jurisdiction over state courts. This SECOND PANEL has pretended this isn’t one of the most-notable Constitutional provisions.  Unless they didn’t bother to read the file, the FIRST PANEL did this work for them and ordered as they did in APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134.
  3. Each justice or judge of the United Statesis required to take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his or her office:

“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” [28 USC 453.]

U.S. Constitution

  1. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH and judges with the Eleventh Circuit have chosen to ignore the Constitution for 15 years when it comes to WINDSOR, and no one else. EVERY Federal Circuit has established precedents on this specific issue, including the Eleventh Circuit.  JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH and judges with the Eleventh Circuit have all violated their Oath of Office.

 

TWELFTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. When there is no legal basis for jurisdiction or an Injunction, the fact that a judge issues void orders does not make them lawful.
  2. The Appellate Courts have the power to correct such overwhelming violations of the Constitution and the law at any time.
  3. The SECOND PANEL is wrong in ignoring the VOID Injunctions that are the basis for the APPEALED ORDERS.

 

THIRTEENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s basis for denying WINDSOR’s APPEALS is to falsely and maliciously claim that WINDSOR did something in the past, so he no longer has his Constitutional right to file anything in any legal matter.

 

FOURTEENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The SECOND PANEL falsely claimed on P.4. of the OPINIONS [APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134] that the case was removed from state court.
  2. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH never ruled on jurisdiction, and he never issued an order in response to WINDSOR’s reply and objection [APPENDIX 19 and APPENDIX 128.]

 

Wanda Dutschmann

FIFTEENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT:

MOM IS DEAD

  1. Wanda Dutschmann is dead. She was known as MOM, and WINDSOR is writing a book titled “KILLING MOM.”

Killing Mom

  1. WINDSOR believes JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH and the SECOND PANEL contributed to her death by denying WINDSOR the opportunity to save her and her Estate through Guardianship in Texas. This is one of the APPEALED ORDERS [01923 – Docket ] [APPENDIX 135].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, WINDSOR requests that this PETITION is granted; relieve WINDSOR from the Judgments and OPINIONS dated 1/25/2024; grant WINDSOR’s APPEALS; and grant such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

Bill Windsor verifies

VERIFICATION OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

I, William M. Windsor, swear that I am authorized to make this verification and that the facts alleged in the foregoing PETITION are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

In accordance with 28 USC 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

This 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this pleading has been prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font, one of the font and point selections required by the Rules.  There are 3891 words.

This 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing to each Defendant by Federal Express to:

RYAN K. BUCHANAN – GABRIEL A. MENDEL

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY — ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

600 United States Courthouse

75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Telephone: (404) 581-6000 — Facsimile: (404) 581-6181

Email: gabriel.mendel@usdoj.gov

This 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

Complaint for VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

District of Columbia

Complaint PDF  —  EXHIBITS PDF

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,                           )

Plaintiff                                                                     )

)           CIVIL ACTION NO.

Scott S. Harris and                                                 )           ________________________

Rashonda Garner,                                                  )

Defendants.                                                             )

                                                                               

 

Complaint for VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND ADDITIONAL CAUSES OF ACTION

The Parties to This Complaint

 The Plaintiff

William Michael Windsor (“WINDSOR”) is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of Lincoln County, South Dakota.

Name:                       William Michael Windsor

Address:                    5013 S. Louise Avenue #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

County:                     Lincoln

Telephone:                352-###-####

Email:                        windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

 

  1. The Defendants

Scott S. Harris (“HARRIS”) is a citizen of the United States, an employee of the federal government in Washington, DC, and a federal official.  HARRIS is sued as an individual.

Name:                        Scott S. Harris

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        pio@supremecourt.gov

 

Rashonda Garner (“GARNER”) is a citizen of the United States, an employee of the federal government in Washington, DC, and a federal official.  GARNER is sued as an individual.

Name:                       Rashonda Garner

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        PMcCabe@supremecourt.gov

 

  1. I Basis for Jurisdiction

[X]  Federal Officials (a Bivens Claim)

Constitutional rights the Plaintiff claims are being violated by federal officials (HARRIS and GARNER), including Denial of Due Process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) provides: “A civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated….”

III.       Statement of Claim

   Where did the events giving rise to your claims occur?

The events took place at the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC and in Lincoln County South Dakota and Sumter County Florida.

  1. What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claims occur?

May 10, 2023; May 23, 2023; June 1, 2023; July 20, 2023; September 26, 2023; October 1, 2023; October 2, 2023; October 27, 2023; October 31, 2023; November 3, 2023; November 20, 2023; November 21, 2023; November 22, 2023; November 27, 2023; December 18, 2023, December 19, 2023; December 20, 2023, December 21, 2023.

What are the facts underlying your claims?

  1. On May 10, 2023, William M. Windsor (“Windsor”), an individual, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (“PETITION”). [EXHIBIT A – May 10, 2023.] This Filing was made in compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s Rule 29 and in the manner required by the Rules, as shown on the Certificate of Service. [EXHIBIT B, Pages 51-52.]  The appropriate number of copies were mailed to the Clerk, and a copy was sent to the Solicitor General and the attorney involved in the case.
  2. On May 10, 2023, the Docket of the United States Supreme Court shows: “Application (22A1009) to file petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in excess of page limits, submitted to Justice Thomas.” [EXHIBIT A, May 10, 2023.]
  3. On May 23, 2023, Justice Clarence Thomas granted the Application (22A1009) “to file petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in excess of page limits. The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition may not exceed 49 pages.” [EXHIBIT A, May 23, 2023.]  It was filed.
  4. On June 1, 2023, the Waiver of the Right of Respondent United States to respond was filed. [EXHIBIT A, June 1, 2023.]
  5. On July 20, 2023, the PETITION was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.” [EXHIBIT A, July 20, 2023.]
  6. WINDSOR spoke by telephone with Jake in the United States Supreme Court Clerk’s Office. Jake explained that WINDSOR’s PETITION would be considered by the nine Justices in a “Conference.”
  7. The “Filing and Rules” section for the United States Supreme Court Clerk’s Office explains:

“The timing for placing petitions on a conference list and distributing them to the Justices is governed by Rule 15.5, which provides as follows: “The Clerk will distribute the petition to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief in opposition is filed, upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing. If a brief in opposition is timely filed, the Clerk will distribute the petition, brief in opposition, and any reply brief to the Court for its consideration no less than 14 days after the brief in opposition is filed, unless the petitioner expressly waives the 14-day waiting period.” [https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx.]

  1. United States Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris has explained Conference Scheduling in a memorandum. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/Guidance-on-Scheduling-2023.pdf.] [EXHIBIT K.]
  2. The Supreme Court Historical Society explains the Conference process. [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/.] [EXHIBIT C.]
  3. On September 26, 2023, the Docket of the United States Supreme Court indicates a Conference was held by the nine Justices in Case No. 22-7648. [EXHIBIT A, September 26, 2023.]
  4. On October 2, 2023, the United States Supreme Court’s Docket shows “Petition DENIED.” [EXHIBIT A, October 2, 2023.]
  5. On October 27, 2023, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Rehearing just to be safe. [EXHIBIT E.] It was sent by USPS. [EXHIBITS F and G.]   This was 25 days after the Docket claims the Petition was denied, so it would have been timely if an order had been issued.
  6. On October 31, 2023, WINDSOR received a letter from Scott S. Harris dated October 2, 2023. [EXHIBIT D.] The letter is not even signed; it’s a stamp.  It bears no seal, and it is not signed by a Justice.  The letter does not qualify as an Order required after a Conference.  And the time has not started to run on the filing of a motion for rehearing.
  7. On November 3, 2023, a letter was dated to WINDSOR by Rashonda Garner for Scott S. Harris. [EXHIBIT H.] The letter is not an order.  All copies of WINDSOR’s Filing were returned. [EXHIBIT I.]  The original copy is stamped “RECEIVED OCT 30 2023 Office of the Clerk Supreme Court U.S.” [EXHIBIT I.]
  8. On November 20, 2023, the letter dated November 3, 2023 was received by WINDSOR. [EXHIBIT J.] The letter is not an order.
  9. On November 21, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail.
  10. On November 21, 2023, Rashonda Garner left a voicemail saying she didn’t understand WINDSOR’s message. [EXHIBIT L.]
  11. On November 22, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail.
  12. On November 27, 2023, all of the mail dated November 3, 2023 regarding the Motion for Rehearing was sent certified mail return receipt to Rashonda Garner. [EXHIBIT H and EXHIBIT J.]
  13. On November 27, 2023, WINDSOR submitted 11 copies of a “MOTION” to the United States Supreme Court.
  14. On December 18, 2023, WINDSOR received a return of all of his November 27, 2023 mailing in a box. [EXHIBIT S.] This is all about WINDSOR’s Petition regarding violations of his Constitutional rights.  USSC Case #22-7648 —   https://lawlessamerica.com/motion-for-compliance-with-rules-of-u-s-supreme-court-was-filed-by-bill-windsor/?fbclid=IwAR14vsRgJBVkismog3TBwe88_GxfP98RcmMOmyLcHUwyt5hVBh3V8sLlENg.  This is the case chosen as one of the approximately 8,000 cases submitted in 2023 that the nine justices were actually to hear on September 26, 2023. https://lawlessamerica.com/74-year-old-disabled-man-with-use-of-only-one-finger-will-have-all-nine-u-s-supreme-court-justices-hear-his-pro-se-petition/?fbclid=IwAR1ExGhpVh0dTM8WRD_Bxr6cA_-NB2Hxg6I5adfB41Z7-FXc_zeQQl-MGQ4
  15. On December 19, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail. [EXHIBIT M.]
  16. On December 19, 2023, WINDSOR again called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail. [EXHIBIT N.] [EXHIBIT O.]
  17. On December 20, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner yet again and left a detailed voicemail. [EXHIBIT P.]  The call was not returned.
  18. On December 20, 2023, the Docket of the United States Supreme Court in Case #22-7648 shows no entries after October 2, 2023. [EXHIBIT Q.]
  19. As of December 26, 2023, Rashonda Garner still has not returned WINDSOR’s

 

PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

The PLAINTIFF has not filed other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts involved in this action.

Arguments – claims for relief

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #1 — Bivens Claim

  1. WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights are being violated by federal officials, Harris and Garner, including Denial of Due Process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. HARRIS and GARNER violated WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights, and those rights were so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known they were being violated.
  2. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

 

  1. WINDSOR has been denied Constitutional Due Process Rights
  2. Due process requires that the government respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Procedural due process guarantees protection to everyone so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions ensure that no one is deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.  Judges have shown absolutely no respect for Windsor’s legal rights.  They have ignored the law and the facts.  Windsor has been denied the most fundamental right to not have his legal rights stolen by dishonest judges.
  3. This is not abuse of discretion; they violated the Constitution and laws intentionally. (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).)
  4. In Case No. 2018-CA-010270 in THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA (“010270”), the fundamental right to have the courts accept Windsor’s sworn affidavits as true has been violated. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).)
  5. Judges are required to be impartial. Judges have demonstrated pervasive bias against Windsor.  They haven’t shown an ounce of impartiality. (Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).)
  6. In “Some Kind of Hearing,” Judge Henry Friendly said that an important right of due process is “a decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.” Florida judges have not made decisions based upon the evidence presented.
  7. Due process is “an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.” Action denying the process that is “due” is unconstitutional.  In 010270, judges have denied the process that is due.  (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).)
  8. Litigants allegedly have the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law precedent. Statutes have been violated and overwhelming case law has been ignored by judges.
  9. Litigants have the right to equal protection of the law regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, handicaps, or sex. Windsor is 75, handicapped, and he has not received equal protection as a pro se party.
  10. Litigants have the right to a remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs that they may receive in their person, property, or character. Windsor has been denied recourse.
  11. Litigants have the right to justice, without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without undue delay; in conformance with the laws. Florida judges have denied justice and have not conformed with the laws.
  12. The principle of due process of law is one of the most important protections against arbitrary rule.
  13. An inherent right is the honesty of the judge. Judges in Florida have committed perjury and obstruction of justice; they have violated many canons of the Code of Judicial Procedure as well as rules in the Florida Code of Professional Conduct.  Inherent in due process is the expectation that the judge will not violate criminal statutes, but they have.
  14. Judges in Florida have violated Windsor’s rights by using their power to inflict their bias.
  15. For due process, Windsor has the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law. Due process allegedly ensures that the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights and guarantee fundamental fairness and justice.  Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.
  16. Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. Action denying the process that is “due” is unconstitutional.  Inherent in the expectation of due process is that the judge will abide by the rules.   Judges in Florida have violated rules for the purpose of damaging Windsor.
  17. An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. Judges in Florida have not been honest.  They have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  18. The Constitution guarantees Windsor a fair and impartial judge. Florida judges denied Windsor’s guarantee to inflict their extra-judicial bias.

Every person “has a constitutional and statutory right to an impartial and fair judge at all stages of the proceeding.” (Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994).  (See Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037; Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted).)

  1. Due process is supposed to guarantee basic fairness and to make people feel that they have been treated fairly.

“justice must give the appearance of justice” (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954).)  (Peters v. Kiff, 407, U.S. 493, 502 (1972).)

48.              At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.”  For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

49.              Where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.  Substantive due process refers to the rights granted in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.  Fifth Amendment due process means substantially the same as Fourteenth Amendment due process.

50.              Judges and Federal officers have a Constitutional duty to Windsor.  The DEFENDANTS breached their Constitutional duties through action and inaction.

  1. They have violated Windsor’s civil and Constitutional rights under color of law.

“[t]rial before an ‘unbiased judge’ is essential to due process.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted). (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972)

  1. The due process clauses of the Constitutions of Florida, South Dakota, and the United States guarantee a party an impartial and disinterested tribunal in civil cases. (Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1613 (1980).)

Partiality in favor of the government may raise a defendant’s due process concerns. (In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).)

  1. Judges in Florida have effectively denied Windsor’s rights of equal protection under the law in Article VI of the Constitution. Their actions prove that they have exercised their power in this and other actions for their own personal purposes rather than the will of the law.

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990).

  1. The orders issued by judges in Florida suggest “the appearance of” animosity towards Windsor.
  2. These latest purported orders from JEFF ASHTON deny WINDSOR his fundamental Constitutional right of access to the courts, “unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance.” (Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008).) Meaningful access to the courts is a constitutional right. (Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc).) [emphasis added.]

 

  1. AN ORDER was not ISSUED ON THE CONFERENCE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2023.
  2. The Rules of the United States Supreme Court require valid evidence of the October 2, 2023 alleged denial by the Court of the Petition of William M. Windsor in Supreme Court Case #22-7648. An Order was not issued.  This is a violation of due process.
  3. The letters dated October 2, 2023 and November 3, 2023 are not orders and have no validity. [EXHIBITS D and H.] The U.S. Supreme Court Rules use the term “Letter” 13 times, and letters such as these are not authorized by the Rules.
  4. No valid evidence of the denials was attached to the letters.
  5. There is no order issued under seal, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691 – “All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.”

The word “process” at 28 U.S.C. 1691 means a court order.  See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884);  Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891);  U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897);  Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904);  U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921);  In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924);  Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968);  and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).

  1. There has never been an ORDER on WINDSOR’s case that was purportedly considered by the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices on September 26, 2023. https://lawlessamerica.com/motion-for-compliance-with-rules-of-u-s-supreme-court-was-filed-by-bill-windsor/?fbclid=IwAR3ldAVwjfI4p7AZo4ILmjCRpshIx-4yAdr-nYAC_yvgz5jg_lIwN0Rfp8Q
  2. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “order” as a “mandate; precept; a command or direction authoritatively given….”
  3. gov defines “clerk of court” as “the court officer who oversees administrative functions, especially managing the flow of cases through the court.
  4. com defines “Administrative function” as that used in carrying out an administrative program and is to be broadly construed to include any aspect of agency organization, procedure, or management. In one state, for example, the term “administrative function” is defined as follows:

(1) “Administrative function” means the administration of:

(i) a law of the State;

(ii) a law of a political subdivision of the State; or

(iii) a rule, regulation, or bylaw of a public body.

(2) “Administrative function” does not include:

(i) an advisory function;

(ii) a judicial function;

(iii) a legislative function;

(iv) a quasi-judicial function; or

(v) a quasi-legislative function. [emphasis added.]

 

  1. Non-judicial court officers, such as clerks of court, will have specific tasks delegated to them by the court; they can make decisions on matters that the legal system does not consider to require judicial discretion and judgment. These are often described as “ministerial.”
  2. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “mandate:” “In practice, a judicial command or precept proceeding from a court or judicial officer, directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence, or decree. Seaman v. Clarke, 60 App. Div. 416, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1002; Horton v. State, 63 Neb. 34, 88 N. W. 146.
  3. “In the practice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the mandate is a precept or order issued upon the decision of an appeal or writ of error, directing the action to be taken, or disposition to be made of the case, by the inferior court … in some of the state jurisdictions….”
  4. WINDSOR has not received a judicial command. A letter purportedly written by the Clerk is not an order.
  5. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precept” as “an order or direction, emanating from authority, to an officer or body of officers, commanding him or them to do some act within the scope of their powers.”
  6. A letter from the Clerk is not a Precept.
  7. The letter does not direct any proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence, or decree.
  8. Failing to do what is required by the rules is a violation of due process, and this is a Constitutional violation.
  9. Windsor requires an order by the United States Supreme Court with a seal of the court and an actual signature of a Justice. This Due Process Notice and Service by Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, Scott S. Harris, was to be made on parties in 22-7648 of the valid record of denial of the Petition by the United States Supreme Court, if that actually happened.

 

  1. WINDSOR’S CONFERENCE DECISION WAS NOT PUBLISHED, AND IT MUST BE.
  2. United States Supreme Court’s Conference Decisions in Appeal No. 22-7648 must be published, and WINDSOR’s was not. This is a violation of due process.

“All conference decisions are published.” [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/ — EXHIBIT C, Paragraph 5.]

“When the vote has been taken on a case, the writing of an opinion is assigned—by the Chief if he voted with the majority, otherwise by the senior Justice of the majority.” [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/ — EXHIBIT C, Paragraph 6.]

 

  1. WINDSOR’S FILINGS WERE NOT DOCKETED AS THEY MUST BE.
  2. WINDSOR’S filing of a Motion for Rehearing [EXHIBIT E] has been unlawfully excluded from the Docket. [EXHIBIT A.] It was timely filed with the Clerk in paper form – an original and 10 copies.  There was no service by the United States Supreme Court.  This is a violation of due process.
  3. “Filing” is defined as:

“To place a paper in the official custody of the clerk of court to enter into the files or records of a case. [https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary#letter_f]

“the act of giving an official form or document to someone in authority in order to begin a legal process.” [Britannica Dictionary definition of FILING.]

“to deposit with the clerk of the court a written complaint or petition which is the opening step in a lawsuit and subsequent documents, including an answer, demurrer, motions, petitions, and orders. [Copyright © 1981 2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.].

 

  1. United States Supreme Court Rule 29 requires:

“1.   Any document required or permitted to be presented to the Court or to a Justice shall be filed with the Clerk in paper form.

“2.   A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk in paper form within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk through the United States Postal Service by first-class mail (including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meter label, showing that the document was mailed on or before the last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before the last day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days….”

  1. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Court seems to be routinely violating the due process requirements of many litigants. EXHIBIT R is an article written in 2012 about almost identical corruption by U.S. Supreme Court Clerk Thomas Suter.
  2. Notice and Service was not provided. Windsor demanded that it be executed immediately.
  3. Windsor asks that this Motion be docketed pursuant to Due Process and that a valid adjudication of the Motion be noticed and served on the parties.
  4. Windsor also requests all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under No. 22-7648, including all audit data. The audit data is the login name and login time of the individuals who entered any data in the records.
  5. WINDSOR believes these unlawful practices have taken place for at least 13 years. WINDSOR requests copies of all letters issued, rather than orders, in every case since 01/01/2008.

 

  1. ALL ORDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH WINDSOR HAVE NOT BEEN SENT BY EMAIL AS REQUIRED.
  2. Documents attached as EXHIBITS hereto show that WINDSOR does not receive mail promptly. The American Association of Non-Lawyers requires that non-lawyers receive all communications by email.  This eliminates one of the many unfair advantages given to lawyers.  This is a violation of due process.
  3. WINDSOR must be served and communicated with at windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com.

 

  1. WINDSOR WAS NOT ISSUED AN ORDER ON HIS MOTION FOR REHEARING, AND HE MUST BE GIVEN THE PROPER TIME TO RESPOND TO ANY OBJECTION.
  2. Orders are required. This is a violation of due process.
  3. United States Supreme Court Rule 44 (2) provides: “Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial….”
  4. There was no “order of denial,” so the time has not started to run on rehearing.

 

  1. THE CLERKS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, HARRIS AND GARNER, HAVE VIOLATED SUPREME COURT RULE 79 BY NOT KEEPING PROPER RECORDS.
  2. Records are required. This is a violation of due process.
  3. Rule 79 requires:

“(a) Civil Docket.

(1) In General. The clerk must keep a record known as the “civil docket” in the form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made.

(2) Items to be Entered. The following items must be marked with the file number and entered chronologically in the docket:

(A) papers filed with the clerk;

(B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns showing execution; and

(C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments.

(3) Contents of Entries; Jury Trial Demanded. Each entry must briefly show the nature of the paper filed or writ issued, the substance of each proof of service or other return, and the substance and date of entry of each order and judgment. When a jury trial has been properly demanded or ordered, the clerk must enter the word ‘jury’ in the docket.”

  1. HARRIS and GARNER have violated WINDSOR’s civil rights by failing to comply with this Rule.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #2 — CONSPIRACY

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The Defendants, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan. The mutual understanding was to break the law at some time in the future and/or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means.  The DEFENDANTS willfully became members of such conspiracy.  During the existence of the conspiracy, various DEFENDANTS knowingly committed at least one overt act in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.  The conspiracy was designed to deprive the PLAINTIFF of legal rights and deceive the courts to obtain an illegal objective.  Each of the DEFENDANTS is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrongs. DEFENDANTS reached agreement to commit these overt acts.  They committed to support their efforts with a series of lies, to conceal documents, to falsify documents, to lie, and to undertake a variety of actions designed to damage the PLAINTIFF.  At least one of the DEFENDANTS knowingly committed at least two of the overt acts. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct). The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #3 — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The DEFENDANTS have shown extreme and outrageous conduct. The PLAINTIFF has been under extreme emotional distress for 15 months.
  3. DEFENDANTS intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the PLAINTIFF through defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of civil and Constitutional rights.
  4. DEFENDANTS inflicted emotional distress on the PLAINTIFF.  DEFENDANTS acted intentionally or recklessly.
  5. Some of the damaging words about the PLAINTIFF and actions against the Plaintiff are not defamatory, and it is these words and actions for which the PLAINTIFF seeks recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  6. Conduct of DEFENDANTS was extreme and outrageous. These outrageously false and/or criminal claims and the wide variety of things that DEFENDANTS have done would prompt an average member of the community to exclaim “outrageous!”
  7. The activities of DEFENDANTS have been so extreme that it has gone well beyond all possible bounds of decency, and it must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. All of the acts of DEFENDANTS taken together amount to the type of extreme conduct that qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  8. The conduct of Defendants caused the distress.
  9. The distress caused was severe emotional distress to the PLAINTIFF. The outrageous harassment, lies, libel, slander, and defamation are bad alone, but the effect on the PLAINTIFF’s mental health has been severe.
  10. There are no alternative causes of action that would provide a remedy for the severe emotional distress caused by DEFENDANTS’ conduct that does not meet whatever standard the Court decides is appropriate for defamation.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #4 — 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) – Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The conduct of DEFENDANTS violates the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (“Federal RICO”).
  3. DEFENDANTS, individually and in conspiracy with one another, are all RICO persons who violated RICO by engaging in (1) “racketeering activity,” (2) conducted through a “pattern,” (3) affecting an “enterprise,” (4) impacting interstate commerce. DEFENDANTS also violated 18 USC §1962(d) by conspiring as alleged herein to violate 18 USC §1962(c). All of DEFENDANTS’ predicate acts have a similar purpose – to damage the PLAINTIFF – all have similar victims, the PLAINTIFF, all have had similar results, and the methods of commission have been virtually identical.
  4. Racketeering Activity included violations of section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), and other sections.
  5. A number of crimes were committed by DEFENDANTS. Interstate crimes of wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and criminal conspiracy were committed between the District of Columbia, South Dakota, and Florida.
  6. DEFENDANTS knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud the PLAINTIFF and did so willingly with an intent to defraud. The activity engaged in consists of two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity, the most recent of which occurred within hours after the commission of a prior act.
  7. The DEFENDANTS committed violations of Federal RICO and RICO Conspiracy – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise). In addition to the substantive offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961, a criminal conspiracy to commit these offenses is a RICO predicate act.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #5 — Violation of Federal RICO Conspiracy Offense — 18 USC § 1962(d)

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The DEFENDANTS, in some way or manner, came to mutual understandings to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan as described herein. The mutual understanding was to break the law. The DEFENDANTS willfully became members of such conspiracy.
  3. During the existence of the conspiracy, various DEFENDANTS knowingly violated the Federal RICO Act. These violations were knowingly committed in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
  4. The conspiracy was designed to deprive the PLAINTIFF of Constitutional rights and legal rights and to deceive the courts to obtain an illegal objective. Each of the DEFENDANTS is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrongs. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise).  The predicate acts are identified herein, and those paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #6 — Violation of Due Process and Deprivation of Rights — 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. HARRIS, GARNER, and UNIDENTIFIED DOES conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, and/or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice with intent to deny PLAINTIFF due process and to injure him while attempting to enforce his right to self-representation, and this violated the equal protection of the laws.. HARRIS, GARNER, and UNIDENTIFIED DOES have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #5 — Violation of Constitutional Rights

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. DEFENDANTS had a Constitutional duty to the PLAINTIFF.  They breached their Constitutional duties to the PLAINTIFF through action and inaction.  This caused damage to the PLAINTIFF.
  3. The PLAINTIFF brings this action against HARRIS and GARNER, pursuant in part to 28 U.S. C. § 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971). HARRIS and GARNER subjected the PLAINTIFF to deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
  4. HARRIS and GARNER’s actions are non-judicial, and there is no immunity. The PLAINTIFF has been damaged.  The PLAINTIFF prays for monetary damages against HARRIS and GARNER based upon violations of federal Constitutional rights pursuant to Bivens.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #6 — Fraud

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. Defendants intentionally misstated material facts, omitted material facts, and made false representations. Defendants knew they made false statements or omitted material facts, or they had a reckless disregard for the truth.  The PLAINTIFF and the courts relied upon the intentional misstatements and/or omission of material facts.  Defendants committed fraud.  The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct).

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #7 — Common Law Fraud

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. Defendants misrepresented material facts. These Defendants had knowledge of the falsity.  Their intent was that the representations would be acted upon by people ignorant of the falsity, relied on the truth of the representations, and had a right to rely upon it.
  3. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct). The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #8 — Violation of Pro Se Rights

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. Pro se parties are a minority class of people. The PLAINTIFF objects to the treatment of pro se parties in state and federal courts.  The PLAINTIFF, Pro Se, has been repeatedly denied rights and abused.  Judges and judicial officers have violated the Constitutional rights of the PLAINTIFF and other pro se parties.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #9 — Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 — Violation of First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
  2. The PLAINTIFF was denied due process and his rights were violated when filings were not filed or considered.
  3. The PLAINTIFF was denied access to a court to seek redress of grievances.
  4. Defendants directly participated in the infraction, after learning of it, failed to remedy the wrong, and created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred or allowed such policy or custom to continue.
  5. As a direct result of the actions, statements and / or policies of the Defendants, the PLAINTIFF suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  6. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
  7. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the PLAINTIFF has suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe and substantial damages. These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and distress.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #10 — Violation of Fourth Amendment Failure to Train and Supervise — 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
  2. The Defendants’ immediate supervisors, had a duty to train and supervise them to ensure they were not engaging in conduct that violated the civil rights of citizens like the PLAINTIFF.
  3. Instead of carrying out this duty, Defendants chose to encourage the misconduct of needless escalation and aggression witnessed by the Defendants against the PLAINTIFF in this case.
  4. DefendantS’ use of excessive force and their illegal seizure and assault upon the PLAINTIFF was the direct result of their supervisor’s deliberate indifference to the civil rights of citizens and of disabled citizens in particular, and his repeated failure and refusal to intervene to supervise, train, or otherwise put a stop to such misconduct.
  5. All of the acts described herein were done by Defendants intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and recklessly in disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s federally protected rights, and they were done pursuant to the pre-existing and ongoing deliberately indifferent customs, policies and practices of the Clerk of Court, under color of law.
  6. Upon information and belief, the Clerk of Court’s customs and practices of unlawful conduct (and failures to train/supervise to prevent the same) proximately causing the harms described herein to the PLAINTIFF.
  7. Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at the Clerk of Court’s Office of the United States Supreme Court to regularly violate the civil rights of citizens like the PLAINTIFF and intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and recklessly operate in disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s federally protected rights;
  8. Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at the Clerk of Court’s Office to try and cover-up and justify such wrongdoing.
  9. Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice by the Clerk of Court to refuse to discipline its employees for misconduct and to refuse to ever find its employees have engaged in wrongdoing, in the face of obvious and repeated constitutional violations, which resulted in a foreseeable culture of dishonesty and silence in the face of ongoing and repeated civil rights violations.
  10. The unlawful conduct of Defendants as set forth in detail herein, amounts to a custom and well-settled, widespread overall practice of fraud and corruption deliberately insulated from law enforcement accountability, throughout the Defendants, even if not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, and is so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.
  11. Through the Defendants’ continuous ratification of unconstitutional actions and inactions, Defendants have condoned and become the driving force of the Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct.
  12. Defendants failed to properly train and supervise its employees to avoid their foreseeable use of unconstitutional conduct.
  13. Defendants’ policies, customs, and practices in failing to properly train and supervise its employees were the moving force and proximate cause of the violations to the PLAINTIFF’s constitutional rights.
  14. The custom, policy, and practice of Defendants of encouraging, condoning, tolerating, and ratifying the unconstitutional conduct, as described herein, were the moving force behind and the proximate cause of, the violations to the PLAINTIFF’s Constitutional rights.
  15. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been deliberately obfuscatory and in other litigation involving claims against its officers, has made concerted efforts to withhold, destroy, conceal and delay the release of documents and correspondence that relate to the unconstitutional policies, customs, and practices set forth above, and which also evidence Defendants’ unconstitutional practices, customs, failures to train, and supervise Defendant officers as set forth above.
  16. The acts or omissions of Defendants caused the PLAINTIFF to suffer physical and mental pain, among other injuries, damages, and losses.
  17. The actions and omissions of Defendants as described herein deprived the PLAINTIFF of the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America and caused his other damages.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #11 — Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 — Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. The PLAINTIFF was denied due process and his rights were violated when Defendants gave false information to WINDSOR and judges.
  3. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
  4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the PLAINTIFF has suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe and substantial damages. These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and distress.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #12 — Monell Claim

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. At all relevant times herein, the Clerk of Court’s Office developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned de facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the PLAINTIFF’s Constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights.
  3. Defendants ‘ unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  4. The Constitutional abuses and violations of the Clerk of Court’s Office, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendants, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further Constitutional violations on the part of its Clerk of Court’s Office, and their employees; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its employees, including Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of misconduct, and, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated.
  5. Upon information and belief, Defendants acting through its Clerk of Court’s Office, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting law enforcement and judicial misconduct.
  6. Defendants’ unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  7. The PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to his Constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such Constitutional abuses.
  8. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
  9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the PLAINTIFF has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages. These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and distress.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #13 — CIVIL CONSPIRACY

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants conspired to damage the PLAINTIFF.
  3. Defendants formed and operated the conspiracy. The object to be accomplished was to defame, libel, slander, harass, cyberstalk, invade his privacy, falsely charge the PLAINTIFF with felonies, cause emotional distress, invade his privacy, and damage him. Evidence shows that Defendants had a meeting of the minds and actively worked together toward this objective.
  4. Multiple unlawful, overt acts were committed. There was specific intent to agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.  The conspiracy occurred in the District of Columbia.  The act in, and effect on, the District of Columbia was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  5. There are underlying torts that support the conspiracy cause of action.
  6. Damage resulted to the PLAINTIFF from acts done in furtherance of the common design. The PLAINTIFF has been caused pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost enjoyment of life, loss of his marriage, damage to his relationship with his family, severe damage to his reputation, damage to his career, and more.  The PLAINTIFF’s business relationships have been severely damaged.
  7. The PLAINTIFF’s reputation is now sullied by false, defamatory information online. This defamation likely can never be erased because it is breeding in cyberspace.
  8. There was extreme risk by Defendants as there was not a remote possibility of injury or even a high probability of minor harm, but rather the likelihood of serious injury to the PLAINTIFF.
  9. Actual awareness existed because Defendants knew about the peril, but their acts demonstrated they did not care.
  10. Some Defendants aided and abetted the conspiracy and underlying torts.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #14 — EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants acted intentionally to damage the PLAINTIFF.
  3. Defendants committed fraud, malice, and gross negligence. This isn’t the case of someone slipping up and making one false statement.  The actions of Defendants were deliberate.
  4. Conduct of Defendants, as described above, is willful, wanton, wicked, intentional, and malicious resulting from fraud, insult, and malice, and it is associated with aggravating circumstances, including willfulness, wantonness, malice, oppression, outrageous conduct, insult, and fraud, thus warranting the PLAINTIFF’s recovery of punitive damages from each of the Defendants.
  5. The entire want of care by the Defendants shows that the acts complained of were the result of conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of the PLAINTIFF.
  6. The PLAINTIFF should receive an award of punitive/exemplary damages. Exemplary damages serve to provide the claimant with recovery above and beyond compensatory damages in order to punish the wrongdoers for egregious conduct and to deter the wrongdoers and others from similar conduct in the future.
  7. Since the PLAINTIFF’s damages can never be erased in this case; there is no amount of money that could compensate the PLAINTIFF for the loss of life as he knew it; there is no amount of money to compensate a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen for the destruction of his reputation.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #15 — INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

  1. If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants and their agents, representatives, and employees will continue to implement similar policies and practices that deny citizens their Constitutional rights without due process, violate their right to equal protection of the laws, and deprive people of the privileges or immunities of citizenship. This course of conduct will cause citizens to suffer irreparable injury, including but not limited to, loss of business opportunities and the deprivation of their livelihoods.  Citizens have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law for such an injury.  Accordingly, injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other authority is appropriate.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #16 — RICO RELIEF

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF asks that this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have acquired and maintained, both directly and indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s); that judgment be entered for the PLAINTIFF and against all Defendants for the PLAINTIFF’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), according to the best available proof; that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF all damages sustained by the PLAINTIFF in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF his costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees; that all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of the PLAINTIFF, his heirs and assigns; that the PLAINTIFF has such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances of this action; that Defendants have conspired to acquire and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and maintain control of, a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d); that Defendants have conspired to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d); that all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s); that judgment be entered for the PLAINTIFF and against all Defendants for the PLAINTIFF’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF treble damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF all damages sustained by the PLAINTIFF in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF his costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees; and that all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of the PLAINTIFF, his heirs and assigns.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #17 — Violations of Title II of Americans With Disabilities Act — 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213

 

  1. All preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated here for purposes of this Claim.
  2. Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discrimination on the basis of a disability.
  3. The DEFENDANTS failed to provide modifications or reasonable accommodations to the PLAINTIFF in light of his disabilities, and the Clerk of Court HARRIS failed to adopt policies and procedures, or adequately train his staff to safely interact with people who suffer such disabilities.
  4. Some reasonable accommodations for a litigant functioning alone with Cognitive Decline and use of only one hand while traveling a thousand miles from home is to allow recording, provide all communications in writing, and communicate by email for the fastest possible delivery.
  5. Unlawful discrimination, pursuant to DOJ regulation, includes a failure to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).
  6. As a proximate result of actions of the DEFENDANTS, the PLAINTIFF was injured, suffered physically and emotionally, has been unable to comply with requests of the Clerk of Court, and continues to experience fear, trauma, and anxiety.
  7. As a result of the DEFENDANTS’ violations of Title II of the ADA, the PLAINTIFF is entitled to compensatory damages.

 

  1. INJURIES

 

________________________________________________________________

 

  1. RELIEF

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants:

  1. that this COMPLAINT be granted;
  1. Appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the unlawful and unconstitutional acts and practices of the Defendants;

 

  1. Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, privacy, sense of security and individual dignity, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law;

 

  1. Appropriate equitable relief against all Defendants as allowed by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the enjoining and permanent restraining of these violations, and direction to Defendants to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of the unconstitutional and unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect the PLAINTIFF or others;

 

  1. All economic losses and damages on all claims allowed by law to be established at trial;

 

  1. Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial;

 

  1. that an order be issued confirming if there was a Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648;

 

  1. that an order be issued reflecting the Due Process Notice and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. Harris, on parties in Case No. 22-7648 of the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court;

 

  1. that the Opinion of the Court in Case No. 22-7648 be provided;

 

  1. that the vote of each Justice be indicated in Case No. 22-7648;

 

  1. that the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process;

 

  1. that an order be issued that WINDSOR must be served and communicated with at windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com;

 

  1. that this Motion be granted – motion TO REQUIRE confirmation OF A Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648 and ISSUANCE OF AN Order SO CONFIRMING; order reflecting the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court in Case No. 22 7648, the Due Process Notice, and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. HARRIS, of OPINION in Case No. 22-7648 on EACH partY; RECORD OF VOTES BY EACH JUSTICE in Case No. 22-7648; ORDER THAT the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that this Motion DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2023 be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648 AT NO charge, including all audit data; AND if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. HARRIS be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648, at no charge, including all audit data; that Windsor be provided copies of letters and orders issued in every case considered in Conference since 02/01/2008; that if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. Harris;

 

  1. Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief, including, but not limited to: (1) The imposition of policy changes designed to avoid future similar misconduct by Defendants; (2) Mandatory training designed to prevent future similar misconduct by Defendants;

 

  1. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and

 

  1. Any further relief to which PLAINTIFF may show himself justly entitled.

 

Submitted this 26th day of December 2023,

 

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

VERIFICATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C.§1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

FURTHER SAITH AFFIANT NOT.

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this COMPLAINT has been prepared in Times New Roman 12-point font, one of the font and point selections approved by this Court and meets the requirements of this Court.

This 26th day of December 2023,

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

WINDSOR is a private individual.  He is not a nongovernmental corporation so a corporate disclosure statement is not appropriate or required by Rule 7.1.

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William Michael Windsor, do swear that on this date, December 26, 2023, I have served the enclosed COMPLAINT on the DEFENDANTS in the above proceeding or their counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

Name:                       Scott S. Harris

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        pio@supremecourt.gov

 

Name:                       Rashonda Garner

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        PMcCabe@supremecourt.gov

 

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

 

THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

 

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

_______________________________
WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR
,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

Bill Windsor reportedly slandered by Marcie Schreck and Letty Lanzaro

Marcie Schreck

Marcie Schreck (not Shrek) is a woman in Amarillo, Texas who asked Bill Windsor for help with her family’s legal problems 12 years ago.  She was a no-show for Lawless America filming, but she contacted Bill for help again in 2021.

Bill spent virtually full-time for a year helping.  Bill stopped helping when Marcie said and did things that he considered to be scary.

Now she’s back accusing Bill Windsor of all types of things that are complete fabrications.

Today, Bill Windsor reportedly slandered by Marcie Schreck and Letty Lanzaro.  Bill received an email from long-time friend, David Schied.  He reported the following:

“Marcie Schreck and her associate, Letty Lanzaro, are two women who have been recently calling to me.  At first, Bill Windsor’s name was never mentioned to me by Marcie Schreck.  Her request was for me to tell her about SEPSIS in my person experience; and then to ask what I might recommend in her having to deal with court corruption pertaining to some case in WACO, TX related to her deceased mother’s estate and problems with her disabled son.  I did the best I could well over 1/2 hour on the first call.
“Then, after a week to 10 days, I got the call from Letty Lanzaro who called with heavy allegations about Bill Windsor being charged with “barratry” in the very same case.  A 3-way conference call was attempted but failed with Marcie.  Soon afterwards, Marcie and I spoke and she reiterated the allegations against Bill with more details.  Both women were insisting that Bill Windsor needed to take down information from the Internet about Marcie’s son’s case or it would be the end of everything for her son as well as her mother’s estate.
“Both women are saying Bill had acted selfishly and ‘lawlessly’ to enter records into the court(s) as Marcie’s “representative.”  Marcie ended up insisting that Bill had done so to get access to her mother’s estate by giving her false promises, including moving to a different state.”
Bill never did anything but help this family.  He doesn’t know Letty.  He doesn’t take well to demands and false accusations.  He will not take anything down, and he will be delighted to sue them for slander and harassment.
Here are a few of the articles that Bill Windsor has published:
Barratry (/ˈbærətri/ BARR-ə-tree) is a legal term that, at common law, described a criminal offense committed by people who are overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation, or who bring repeated or persistent acts of litigation for the purposes of profit or harassment.

Crazy Judge Dan L. Schaap – Hunter Tyler Schreck Legal Update – 11-29-2021

 

crazy are you crazy cropped 200h

Is Judge Dan L. Schaap aka “Big Chief” crazy? It has been a very busy week in the case of Hunter Tyler Schreck’s case. Hunter was almost murdered on June 24, 2020 by as many as 15 Amarillo, Texas Police officers and civilians. Hunter had done absolutely nothing. Judge Daniel Leon Schaap has just issued one of the craziest orders I have ever seen.

Judge Dan L. Schaap issued a CRAZY ORDER order asking the Randall County District Attorney if he had an objection to the termination of Hunter Schreck’s corrupt court-appointed attorney. Seriously. This guy has to be nuts. The prosecuting attorney has no say in who a criminal defendant chooses to use. The court-appointed attorney works for and is paid by Randall County.

crazy are you crazy


This is the CRAZY JUDGE — Judge Dan L. Schaap aka Judge Daniel Leon Schaap aka Leon aka Big Chief:

 

Schaap Judge Dan 900w
                Judge Dan L. Schaap — BIG CHIEF


BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: Judge Dan L. Schaap is the lowest of low-life judges. I’ve dealt with or been aware of thousands of corrupt judges, but they’re usually just dishonest a$$hole$. Judge Dan L. Schaap is trying to murder a disabled boy. I hope there is a very special place in Hell for Judge Dan L. Schaap.

Marcie Schreck has filed a Motion in response to the CRAZY ORDER:

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, Hunter Tyler Schreck (“Hunter” or “DEFENDANT”) through Marcie Schreck and William M. Windsor, who have his power of Attorney for all legal matters, and hereby files this Motion to Strike Order Setting Hearing by Submission (“MOTION”).  There is no legal basis for this MOTION.

1.                  On 11/23/2021, Judge Dan L. Schaap signed the ORDER SETTING HEARING BY SUBMISSION (“ORDER”). [EXHIBIT 389.] 

2.                  JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP DOES NOT HAVE JURIDICTION BECAUSE JUDGE ANA ESTEVEZ HAS GIVEN PLENARY JURISDICTION TO JUDGE KENT SIMS.

3.                  The ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT granted plenary power to Judge Kent Sims. [EXHIBIT 317.] 

4.                  A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action, with no limitations.

5.                  JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP HAS NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY PENDING AGAINST HIM, AND THE 11/18/2021 HEARING IS VOID.

6.                  Case law requires that the disqualification hearing must be an evidentiary hearing.  Judge Kent Sims denied evidence.  He refused to swear in Marcie Schreck.

“Judge Brown did not afford Durden an evidentiary hearing on his motion to disqualify/recuse; therefore, we conditionally grant the petition in part and direct
Judge Brown to vacate his ‘Order on Motion to Recuse and Jeopardy Motion for Dismissal.’…” (In re State ex rel. Durden, 587 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App. 2019).)

“On appeal, Sanchez complains that an evidentiary hearing was mandatory under TEX.R.CIV.P. 18a once the recusal motion was referred to the administrative
judge. We agree.” (Sanchez v. State, 926 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. App. 1996).)

“Sanchez complains that an evidentiary hearing was mandatory under TEX.R.CIV.P. 18a once the recusal motion was referred to the administrative judge. We
agree.”  (Sanchez v. State, 927 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. App. 1996).)

“Accordingly, the respondent abused his discretion in disqualifying Zayas without notice and an evidentiary hearing.” (In re Lopez, 286 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. App.
2008).)

“…the only order the trial court had authority to enter after it refused to recuse itself was an order of referral. State ex rel. Millsap, 692 S.W.2d at 481. Because
the trial court neither granted the motion to recuse nor referred the matter to the presiding judge, any other order made thereafter was void.” (Crawford v.
State
, 807 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. App. 1991).)

7.                  THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO OBJECT TO OR OPPOSE THE WITHDRAWAL OF A COURT-APPOINTED DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO WAS TERMINATED MONTHS AGO.

8.                  Brooks Barfield has begged to withdraw. [EXHIBIT 310.] [EXHIBIT 311.]

9.                  The DEFENDANT has filed motions to dismiss Brooks Barfield as he was terminated on October 12, 2021. [EXHIBIT 2.]  [EXHIBIT 16.] [EXHIBIT 188.]

10.              JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP TOLD THE DEFENDANT AND MARCIE SCHRECK THAT HUNTER COULD TERMINATE BROOKS BARFIELD AT ANY TIME.

11.              The Zoom call was tape recorded.  EXHIBIT 134 is a transcript of the call.  EXHIBIT 297 is the Audio Recording.

12.              The DEFENDANT recorded a video for Judge Dan L. Schaap explaining that he does not want Brooks Barfield.  The DEFENDANT refuses to work with Brooks Barfield. [EXHIBIT 156 and EXHIBIT 157.] [EXHIBIT 377.] [EXHIBIT 392.]

13.              THE DEFENDANT HAS FILED A STATE BAR OF TEXAS GRIEVANCE AGAINST BROOKS BARFIELD, AND HE IS SEEKING HIS DISBARMENT.

14.              The Grievance was filed by Fax on 11/24/2021. [EXHIBIT 388.]

15.              Marcie Schreck is also seeking a protective order against Brooks Barfield. [EXHIBIT 308 and EXHIBIT 309.]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the DEFENDANT prays that the Court strike the ORDER SETTING HEARING BY SUBMISSION; sign the order [EXHIBIT 188] removing Brooks Barfield from the case and order him to immediately deliver the case file and all evidence to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK; order all filings received by the Clerk of Court to be docketed; enter an order recognizing that Marcie Schreck and William M. Windsor are authorized by Texas law Chapter 752 to represent HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK as his Attorney-in-Fact [EXHIBIT 400]; schedule a hearing on the Motion to Quash the Purported Indictments and Motion to Dismiss; schedule a hearing on the Motion for Discharge due to failure to provide a Speedy Trial; and for such other and further relief in connection therewith that is proper.

 

Photo Hunter Schreck and Marcie Schreck happier times 2015 CROPPED 640w
                      Hunter Tyler Schreck and Marcie Schreck BEFORE Hunter was almost murdered
and suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury

 

Marcie Schreck believes Judge Dan L. Schaap may be mentally ill.

There have been a lot of significant developments in the case of HUNTER TYLER SHRECK this week. It appears the CRAZY ORDER should lead to the removal of BROOKS BARFIELD, the clueless attorney of Amarillo. We are waiting with baited breath to see if Big Chief Dan L. Schaap recognizes the law that makes Marcie Schreck and Bill Windsor the Attorneys-in-Fact for Hunter Tyler Schreck.

If he does, it’s ramming speed!

If Big Chief Dan L. Schaap doesn’t schedule hearings on the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial after 525 days and the Motion to Quash the Indictments, then it’s time for the Court of Appeals.

We have noticed many depositions. We have sent many demands for criminal investigations against the army of evildoers. We have been speaking with the top attorneys in the country who might like to make $20 million handling Hunter Schreck’s civil case. We have emailed the defendants in the civil case maaaany times. Marcie has been receiving wonderful help from Easter Seals. We have filed two Bar Association Complaints. We are prepared to file a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Big Chief. We have done background checks on every potential defendant using MyLife’s 96-hour introductory trial special for $1. That’s how we managed to get Big Chief’s personal emails. 🙂

 

Marcie has had a lot of success getting chances for desperately-needed medical care for Hunter and Logan. She somehow is managing to get $15,000 in dental work done for Logan for FREE.

Stay tuned for more news from Big Chief. Maybe they are finally ready to give up and dismisss the case.


 

Other Articles about Hunter Tyler Schreck:

Hunter Tyler Schreck – a Disabled Young Man – has been Victimized by Police, District Attorney, and Pentecostal Church Members in Amarillo Texas

Just Like the Man who has Done Nothing Wrong by Hunter Tyler Schreck

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 1

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 2

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 3

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 4

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 5

It’s the Belt — Secrets of the Clever Mom of Hunter Tyler Schreck

 

Beware of Brooks Barfield

 

Bar Grievance Against Brooks Barfield

 

Bar Grievance Against The D.A. Robert Love

 

Crazy Judge Dan L. Schaap ak BIG CHIEF

Copyright LawlessAmerica.com
Bill Windsor went to high school and college in Lubbock, Texas — just a short drive from Amarillo, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country he has loved so much. 


 

windsor bill 2012 09 28 cropped tight edited 200w

Bill Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.   This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our  Legal Notice and Terms

 

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com 

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#HunterTylerSchreck
#HunterSchreck
#MarcieSchreck
#RandallCounty
#RandallCountyTexas
#Amarillo
#AmarilloTexas
#JudgeDanLSchaap
#JudgeSchaap
#JudgeDanSchaap
#WBrooksBarfield
#brooksbarfield
#traumaticbraininjury
#amarillopolice
#amarillopolicedepartment
#DanielRivera
#AllisonMuncell
#matthewbrush
#SheaLitchie
#danielsmith
#JubileeChurch
#johnstiffmemorialpark
#davidblount
#daveblount
#nathancarrington
#rolondacarrington
#nataleycarrington
#jubileeapostolicchurch
#angelicaesparza
#brayanzubiate
#ChristianMorgan
#VictorPinentel
#AaronGurule
#DanaGurule
#georgehastings
#dennisgreen
#jbeghtel
#vpadilla
#jtinsley
#sgthaley
#samanthabowman
#samanthafontenot
#SamanthaBowmanFontenot
#bushland
#BushlandTexas

 

Hunter Tyler Schreck Legal Update – 11-22-2021

 

crazy are you crazy cropped 200h

Update since Hunter Tyler Schreck filed a Mega-Million federal lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas on 10/29/2021 for violation of his Constitutional rights. It has been a very busy week. Hunter was almost murdered on June 24, 2020 by as many as 15 Amarillo, Texas Police officers and civilians. Hunter had done absolutely nothing.

Hunter Schreck has filed his lawsuit pro se. He has named 58 Defendants and 100 John Doe Defendants (gangsters he will identify in discovery). Here is Civil Action No. 2-21CV-220-Z – Schreck v City of Amarillo, Et al. – Verified Complaint2-21CV-220-Z – Schreck v City of Amarillo, Et al. – Verified Complaint.

crazy are you crazy


On 10/28/2021, BROOKS BARFIELD sent Marcie Schreck notice of a “Show Cause Hearing” in the Randall County 47th Judicial District Court on 11/2/2021 at 1:30 p.m. [EXHIBIT 211.]  She was told by Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds that HUNTER’s bond would be revoked and he would be arrested if he wasn’t there.  Marcie Schreck checked the docket, and there was no hearing shown.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: There was no such hearing scheduled. Just one of the almost never-ending lies of BROOKS BARFIELD, Public Pretender and criminal.

On 10/28/2021 at 11:38 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD advising him to notify his malpractice carrier that a malpractice lawsuit was being filed against him. [EXHIBIT 208.]
On 10/28/2021 at 8:24 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent a CEASE-AND-DESIST notice by email to BROOKS BARFIELD. [EXHIBIT 207.] It said:

Mr. Barfield: Please CEASE AND DESIST.  Hunter, William, Logan, and I don’t ever want to hear from you again.  I thought that was made quite clear from earlier messages and filings. Once again:  Do not show up anywhere that Hunter and I are.  Do not contact us in any manner.  No email.  No mail.  No couriers.  No phone calls.  No visits.  No courthouse contact.  No telegrams.  No trick or treating.  NOTHING. CEASE AND DESIST. You have made threats to me.  I am asking the police to pursue criminal charges against you for what you have already done.  If you contact us again, we will go seek a STALKING, Harassment, and Cyber Terrorism Protective Order.  I am copying several people so they are aware of this. Marcie Schreck – Attorney-in-Fact for Hunter Tyler Schreck

On 10/29/2021, Marcie Schreck (“MOMMA SCHRECK”) filed the Verified Complaint with Alice in the Clerk’s Office of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She filed the Verified Complaint, a Civil Cover Sheet, a Certificate of Interested Persons, and a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Costs. She also delivered 58 Summons Foms for signature by the Clerk once In Forma Pauperis status is approved.

On 10/29/2021 and 10/30/2021, Marcie Schreck emailed a copy of the federal court Verified Complaint to BROOKS BARFIELD and the other defendants with known email addresses.

On 10/29/2021 at 8:27 a.m., Marcie Schreck received an email from Sandy Russell of Randall County that shows the federal court Verified Complaint to BROOKS BARFIELD and the other defendants with known email addresses was received. [EXHIBIT 209.]

On 10/31/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck at 10:11 a.m. with notice of a “Status Hearing” in the Randall County 47th Judicial District Court on 11/2021 at 1:30 pm.  Neither HUNTER nor Marcie Schreck knew anything about this.  He asked Marcie Schreck to confirm receipt.  He said: “Your attendance is required for this hearing.  When you arrive at court, you are required to text or call.  Then when the hearing is concluded, contact us again to report the outcome.  We also need a copy of any and all court documents that you received.  You can send them by email or text or by simply taking a photo of them and email.  I wish you the best outcome.”

On 11/1/2021 at 10:13 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:22 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:22 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent another email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:28 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to Samantha Wilson of the BARFIELD Law Firm with instructions on what BROOKS BARFIELD must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:10 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to Samantha Wilson of the BARFIELD Law Firm with instructions on what BROOKS BARFIELD must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:15 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:19 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:28 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 8:56 a.m., BROOKS BARFIELD filed a MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL.” [EXHIBIT 163.]  It says: “Good cause exists for withdrawal as counsel in that Movant is unable to effectively communicate with Hunter Schreck so as to be able to adequately represent Defendant. Hunter Schreck no longer desires that Movant represent him and desires to be self-represented or “pro se.” Defendant and Defendant’s mother (Marcie Schreck) has filed a frivolous law suit in Federal Court cause number2-21CV-220-Z.”

On 11/2/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck to ask if she received his message regarding the “Status Hearing” today.  Marcie Schreck responded “Yes.”  Marcie Schreck informed him that HUNTER is bedridden, but she is going, armed to the teeth with lots of filings.  Marcie Schreck thanked him and asked whether this was a Status or Show Cause hearing.  Billy Maples responded: “Call me please.”  Marcie Schreck asked him to call her to confirm that BROOKS BARFIELD was no longer HUNTER’s attorney.

On 11/2/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds called Marcie Schreck.  He told her that if HUNTER did not come to the Status Hearing, he will revoke the bond, and if he doesn’t, then Judge Dan L. Schaap will do it for him, put a warrant out for his arrest, rearrest HUNTER, and put him back in jail.  Marcie Schreck advised Billy Maples that HUNTER is extremely ill.  He cannot and will not be at the Status Hearing today.  He’s in bed.  Marcie Schreck advised Billy Maples that she has called two doctors asking for letters of confirmation that HUNTER cannot attend.  She reported that she gets voice mails saying it will take 24-hours for them to call back.  Marcie Schreck told him that she truly tried reaching a doctor in this emergency, and no call has been returned.

On 11/2/2021 at approximately 12:30 p.m., BROOKS BARFIELD called Marcie Schreck.  He was lying on the phone.  He asked Marcie Schreck to let him represent HUNTER.  He said “I am a good lawyer.”  Marcie Schreck told him: “NO.”  She had to cut him short as she wasn’t dressed and the calls from Billy Maples and him threatening HUNTER and her with jail were going to cause her to be late for court.  Marcie Schreck has a tape recording of this call.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: I have long since learned that Marcie Schreck has a tape recording of everything. She has successfuly downloaded 15 of her recording devices to a Flash Drive. I believe that resulted in 850 files. She has two different types of recorders that she has not yet figured out how to download.

On 11/2/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck.  She left her phone at home (to keep it safe in the event she was arrested), so her husband, William Schreck, responded to inform him that she was on her way to the courthouse.  Billy Maples said: “So HUNTER isn’t coming?”  William Schreck responded: “Hunter is not able to make it.”

On 11/2/2021 at 1:31 p.m., Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck: “Is HUNTER coming to the hearing?  You requested for me to be here, and you are not.  I’m not seeing you or him.”

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: I believe Billy Maples is part of the Criminal Racketeering Enterprise in Amarillo. It seems to me he is acting as an agent fior the evildoers.

On November 2, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., there was an event called a “hearing” in the 47th Judicial District Court in Amarillo, Texas (state court — criminal action). Hunter Tyler Schreck never received an order or any notice of this event.

On 11/2/2021 at 1:33 p.m., Marcie Schreck walked into the courtroom.  BROOKS BARFIELD was not there.  Marcie Schreck was looking at her papers.  Brad Parker, Bailiff, walked up and handed her a piece of paper from Judge Dan L. Schaap.  Marcie Schreck smiled at him and asked if he was Brad Parker.  He said “I am.” She said “I’m Marcie Schreck, nice to meet you.”  Marcie Schreck shook his hand.

 

BARF bowl
                                                                            Brooks BARField makes me want to BARF.


On 11/2/2021 at 1:43 p.m., BROOKS BARFIELD walked into the courtroom.  Marcie Schreck approached him and said: “May I speak with you?  Billy Maples has threatened to revoke HUNTER’s bond.  You have threatened me.  PLEASE tell the judge HUNTER is extremely ill in bed and can’t come.”  BROOKS BARFIELD would not let Marcie Schreck say more.  Marcie Schreck walked into the courtroom and took a seat behind what she believes was a member of the DA’s Office.  Marcie Schreck was approximately 40-feet from the bench.  She was surprised to see a lot of people in the audience for the hearing.

 

Schaap Judge Dan 900w
                 Judge Dan L. Schaap — Lowlife


On 11/2/2021 at approximately 1:50 p.m., Judge Dan L. Schaap walked in.  A court reporter was there.  BROOKS BARFIELD told the judge HUNTER was not there.  He did not explain why.  BROOKS BARFIELD told the judge that a federal lawsuit was filed last Friday, and “she” named 58 defendants and maybe 100 more.”  BROOKS BARFIELD said: “I put in my withdrawal to you on November 1, 2021.”  He said something about it being a conflict of interest.  The judge and BROOKS BARFIELD then said some legal terms that Marcie Schreck did not understand.  Marcie Schreck had trouble hearing Judge Dan L. Schaap.  She did hear the judge say: “It may be a conflict of interest with me as well.  I don’t know yet.”  The court reporter’s transcript should indicate exactly what was said.

Marcie Schreck raised her hand.  Judge Dan L. Schaap nodded at her.  Marcie Schreck asked: “Your honor, may I speak?”  The judge said: “Yes.”  Marcie Schreck said: “My son is Autistic, and I have education about that.”  Judge Dan L. Schaap immediately told her: “If you cross that boundary with me; you have crossed that boundary with me; you will not like it.  You will see.”  He was very condescending and threatening to Marcie SchreckMarcie Schreck tried to speak politely, but Judge Dan L. Schaap then threatened her.  He said in a louder voice: “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”  Marcie Schreck didn’t, but she said “Your honor, yes, thank you.”  The judge said something about needing to hear from HUNTER about BROOKS BARFIELD.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: Judge Dan L. Schaap is the lowest of low-life judges. I’ve dealt with or been aware of thousands of corrupt judges, but they’re usually just dishonest a$$hole$. Judge Dan L. Schaap ids trying to murder a disabled boy. I hope there is a very special place in Hell for Judge Dan L. Schaap.

On 11/2/2021, after the hearing, Billy Maples told Marcie Schreck he heard the DA and attorneys that they had plans to take her down and arrest her right there.  He said they really wanted to, and if she had said one more word, she would have been arrested and gone to jail.  Billy Maples talked with the same people after the hearing, and they said they were really wanting to arrest Marcie Schreck.

On 11/2/2021 at 7:27 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with a CEASE-AND-DESIST notice [EXHIBIT 210]: “Cease and desist.  Do not contact Hunter or me.  We want NOTHING to do with you except in your capacity as a Defendant in Schreck v. City of Amarillo, Et al. You lied to me today.  You lied to Judge Dan L. Schaap today.  I believe you are someone who finds it impossible to tell the truth.I believe your only interest is harming my family and me. The law and the Rules say you are terminated, so go away.  You have a conflict of interest, as YOU told me. Hunter will be informing the judge (who has no jurisdiction) exactly what he thinks of you.  Hunter had you pegged from the start — someone who does not have his best interests in mind and someone he does not trust.  Mr. BARField, you are INCOMPETENT.”

The evening of 11/2/2021, Marcie Schreck and her husband decided to record a video of HUNTER that they could send to the judge expressing Hunter Schreck’s feelings about BROOKS BARFIELD.  Marcie Schreck’s affidavit shows what HUNTER said. [EXHIBIT 156.]   William Schreck’s affidavit shows what HUNTER said. [EXHIBIT 157.]  HUNTER made it clear he doesn’t want anything to do with BROOKS BARFIELD.

On 11/3/2021, BROOKS BARFIELD wrote a letter to HUNTER SCHRECK and mailed it Certified Mail Return Receipt. [EXHIBIT 163.]

On 11/5/2021, the mailman delivered the 11/3/2021 letter from BROOKS BARFIELD. [EXHIBIT 163.]  No one signed for it.  The green return receipt card had been removed from the envelope before it was delivered.  The letter told HUNTER to communicate directly with him.  This is a clear violation of the Cease-and-Desist and an effort to damage HUNTER with a panic attack and anxiety.

On 11/8/2021, the Register of Actions in the case shows that none of the purported filings in the case that never appeared on the Docket still are not on the Docket. [EXHIBIT 212.]

BROOKS BARFIELD violated the rules of professional conduct; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and more.  HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK had a right to expect BROOKS BARFIELD to abide by Texas law, Texas rules, Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (“TRPC”), and the Constitutions.  HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK had a right to expect BROOKS BARFIELD and JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP to refrain from doing acts that injured HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  BROOKS BARFIELD and JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP have committed professional misconduct and have violated state and federal statutes, Rules, Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (“TRPC”), and the Constitutions.  BROOKS BARFIELD and JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP committed acts that injured HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.

HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK has been under extreme emotional distress for 15 months.  BROOKS BARFIELD intentionally inflicted emotional distress on HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK through defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of civil and Constitutional rights.

 

Barfield law firm 2


BROOKS BARFIELD inflicted emotional distress HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  He acted intentionally and recklessly.

The conduct of BROOKS BARFIELD was extreme and outrageous.  An average member of the community to exclaim “outrageous!”

The activities of BROOKS BARFIELD have been so extreme that it has gone well beyond all possible bounds of decency, and it must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.  The conduct of BROOKS BARFIELD caused extreme distress to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  The distress caused was severe emotional distress to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  The outrageous harassment, lies, libel, slander, and defamation are bad alone, but the effect on HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK’s mental health has been severe.

BROOKS BARFIELD has repeatedly ignored Cease-and-Desist notices.  He has repeatedly threatened Marcie Schreck.  He has damaged HUNTER, and Marcie Schreck believes he is attempting to kill HUNTER.  BROOKS BARFIELD makes Marcie Schreck’s entire family fear even leaving their home because of what BROOKS BARFIELD may do personally or may arrange to have done to them.

 

Photo Hunter Schreck and Marcie Schreck happier times 2015 CROPPED 640w
Hunter Tyler Schreck and Marcie Schreck BEFORE Hunter was almost murdered
and suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury

 

Marcie Schreck believes BROOKS BARFIELD is a criminal and is mentally ill.  He has caused HUNTER and Marcie Schreck to fear for their lives.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: Thanks to Marcie Schreck for providing this information to me. It comes from her Appolication for Protective Order that she is preparing to file against W BROOKS BARFIELD.

Much more news to report….


 

Other Articles about Hunter Tyler Schreck:

Hunter Tyler Schreck – a Disabled Young Man – has been Victimized by Police, District Attorney, and Pentecostal Church Members in Amarillo Texas

Just Like the Man who has Done Nothing Wrong by Hunter Tyler Schreck

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 1

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 2

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 3

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 4

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 5

Copyright LawlessAmerica.com
Bill Windsor went to high school and college in Lubbock, Texas — just a short drive from Amarillo, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country that he has loved so much. 


 

windsor bill 2012 09 28 cropped tight edited 200w

Bill Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.   This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our  Legal Notice and Terms

 

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com 

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#HunterTylerSchreck
#HunterSchreck
#MarcieSchreck
#RandallCounty
#RandallCountyTexas
#Amarillo
#AmarilloTexas
#WBrooksBarfield
#brooksbarfield
#traumaticbraininjury
#amarillopolice
#amarillopolicedepartment
#DanielRivera
#AllisonMuncell
#matthewbrush
#SheaLitchie
#danielsmith
#JubileeChurch
#johnstiffmemorialpark
#davidblount
#daveblount
#nathancarrington
#rolondacarrington
#nataleycarrington
#jubileeapostolicchurch
#angelicaesparza
#brayanzubiate
#ChristianMorgan
#VictorPinentel
#AaronGurule
#DanaGurule
#georgehastings
#dennisgreen
#jbeghtel
#vpadilla
#jtinsley
#sgthaley
#samanthabowman
#samanthafontenot
#SamanthaBowmanFontenot
#bushland
#BushlandTexas

 

Motion for Compliance with Rules of U.S. Supreme Court was Filed by Bill Windsor

United States Supreme Court Crime Scene

On November 27, 2023, a Motion for Compliance with Rules of U.S. Supreme Court was filed by Bill Windsor

No. 22-7648

In The Supreme Court of the United States

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Petitioner

v.

James N. Hatten, et al, Respondents

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition To The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

 Motion to Require Confirmation of a Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648 and Issuance of an Order so Confirming; order reflecting the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court in Case No. 22 7648, the Due Process Notice, and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. Harris, of Opinion in Case No. 22-7648 on each party; Reord of votes by each Justice in Case No. 22-7648; Order that the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that this Motion dated November 27, 2023 be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648 at no charge, including all audit data; and if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. Harris.

 

William M. Windsor, Pro Se – Self-Represented Litigant,

and Founding Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####, windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    1. On May 10, 2023, William M. Windsor (“Windsor”), an individual, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (“PETITION”). [EXHIBIT A – May 10, 2023.] This Filing was made in compliance with this Court’s Rule 29 and in the manner required by the Rules, as shown on the Certificate of Service. [EXHIBIT A, Pages 51-52.]  The appropriate number of copies were mailed to the Clerk, and a copy was sent to the Solicitor General and the attorney involved in the case.
    2. On May 10, 2023, the Docket of this Court shows: “Application (22A1009) to file petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in excess of page limits, submitted to Justice Thomas.” [EXHIBIT A, May 10, 2023.]
    3. On May 23, 2023, Justice Clarence Thomas granted the Application (22A1009) “to file petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in excess of page limits. The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition may not exceed 49 pages.” [EXHIBIT A, May 23, 2023.]
    4. On June 1, 2023, the Waiver of the Right of Respondent United States to respond was filed. [EXHIBIT A, June 1, 2023.]
    5. On July 20, 2023, the PETITION was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.” [EXHIBIT A, July 20, 2023.]
    6. WINDSOR spoke by telephone with Jake in the Clerk’s Office. Jake explained that WINDSOR’s PETITION would be considered by the nine Justices in a “Conference.”
    7. This Court’s “Filing and Rules” section explains:

“The timing for placing petitions on a conference list and distributing them to the Justices is governed by Rule 15.5, which provides as follows: “The Clerk will distribute the petition to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief in opposition is filed, upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing. If a brief in opposition is timely filed, the Clerk will distribute the petition, brief in opposition, and any reply brief to the Court for its consideration no less than 14 days after the brief in opposition is filed, unless the petitioner expressly waives the 14-day waiting period.” [https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx.]

    1. Clerk Scott S. Harris has explained Conference Scheduling in a memorandum. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/Guidance-on-Scheduling-2023.pdf.] [EXHIBIT K.]
    2. The Supreme Court Historical Society explains the Conference process. [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/.] [EXHIBIT C.]
    3. On October 2, 2023, this Court’s Docket shows “Petition DENIED.” [EXHIBIT A, October 2, 2023.]
    4. On October 31, 2023, WINDSOR received a letter from Scott S. Harris dated October 2, 2023. [EXHIBIT D.] The letter is not even signed; it’s a stamp.  It bears no seal, and it is not signed by the Justices.  The letter does not qualify as an Order required after a Conference.  And the time has not started to run on the filing of a motion for rehearing.
    5. On October 27, 2023, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Rehearing just to be safe. [EXHIBIT E.]  It was sent by USPS. [EXHIBIT F and EXHIBIT G.]   This was 25 days after the Docket claims the Petition was denied, so it was timely (though an order has not been issued).
    6. On November 3, 2023, a letter was dated to WINDSOR by Rashonda Garner for Scott S. Harris. [EXHIBIT H.] The letter is not an order.  All copies of WINDSOR ‘s Filing were returned. [EXHIBIT I.]  The original copy is stamped “RECEIVED OCT 30 2023 Office of the Clerk Supreme Court U.S. [EXHIBIT I.]
    7. On November 20, 2023, the letter dated November 3, 2023 was received by WINDSOR. [EXHIBIT J.] The letter is not an order.
    8. On November 21, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail.
    9. On November 21, 2023, Rashonda Garner left a voicemail saying she didn’t understand WINDSOR’s message.
    10. On November 22, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail.
    11. On November 27, 2023, all of the unlawful mail dated November 3, 2023 regarding the Motion for Rehearing was sent certified mail return receipt to Rashonda Garner. [EXHIBIT H and EXHIBIT J.]

ARGUMENTS

AN ORDER MUST BE ISSUED ON THE CONFERENCE DECISION

    1. The Rules of this Court require valid evidence of the October 2, 2023 alleged denial by the Court of the Petition of William M. Windsor in Supreme Court Case #22-7648.
    2. The letters dated October 2, 2023 and November 3, 2023 are not orders and have no validity. [EXHIBIT D and EXHIBIT H.] The U.S. Supreme Court rules use the term “Letter” 13 times, and letters such as these are not authorized by the Rules.
    3. No valid evidence of the denials was attached to the letters.
    4. There is no order issued under seal, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691 – “All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.”

The word “process” at 28 U.S.C. 1691 means a court order.  See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884);  Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891);  U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897);  Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904);  U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921);  In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924);  Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968);  and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).

    1. Therefore, Windsor is requesting an order by the Court with a seal of the court and an actual signature of Scott S. Harris. This Due Process Notice and Service by Clerk of the Court Scott S. Harris is to be made on parties in 22-7648 of the valid record of denial of the Petition by the Court.

WINDSOR’S CONFERENCE DECISION MUST BE PUBLISHED

    1. This Court’s Conference Decisions must be published, and WINDSOR’s has not.

“All conference decisions are published.” [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/ — EXHIBIT C, Paragraph 5.]

“When the vote has been taken on a case, the writing of an opinion is assigned—by the Chief if he voted with the majority, otherwise by the senior Justice of the majority.” [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/ — EXHIBIT C, Paragraph 6.]

WINDSOR’S FILINGS MUST BE DOCKETED

    1. WINDSOR’S filing of a Motion for Rehearing [EXHIBIT E.] has been unlawfully excluded from the Docket. [EXHIBIT A.] It was timely filed with the Clerk in paper form – an original and 10 copies.  There was no service by this Cour.
    2. “Filing” is defined as:

“To place a paper in the official custody of the clerk of court to enter into the files or records of a case. [https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary#letter_f]

“the act of giving an official form or document to someone in authority in order to begin a legal process.” [Britannica Dictionary definition of FILING.]

“to deposit with the clerk of the court a written complaint or petition which is the opening step in a lawsuit and subsequent documents, including an answer, demurrer, motions, petitions, and orders. [Copyright © 1981 2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.].

      1. This Court’s Rule 29 requires:

“1. Any document required or permitted to be presented to the Court or to a Justice shall be filed with the Clerk in paper form.

“2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk in paper form within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk through the United States Postal Service by first-class mail (including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meter label, showing that the document was mailed on or before the last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before the last day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days….”

    1. Clerk Scott S. Harris of the United States Supreme Court seems to be routinely violating the due process requirements of many litigants.
    2. Such Notice and Service are overdue, and Windsor demands that it be executed immediately.
    3. Windsor asks that this Motion be docketed pursuant to Due Process and that a valid adjudication of the Motion be noticed and served on the parties.
    4. Windsor also requests all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under No. 22-7648, including all audit data. The audit data is the login name and login time of the individuals who entered any data in the records.
    5. WINDSOR believes these unlawful practices have taken place for at least 15 years. WINDSOR requests copies of all letters issued rather than orders in every case since 01/01/2008.

ALL ORDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH WINDSOR

MUST BE SENT BY EMAIL

    1. Documents attached hereto show that WINDSOR does not receive mail promptly. The American Association of Non-Lawyers requires that non-lawyers receive all communications by email.  This eliminates one of the many unfair advantages given to lawyers.
    2. WINDSOR is a resident of South Dakota by using a mail service and registering with the state. It seems to take at least seven days for mail to get to South Dakota.  As WINDSOR lives full-time in a camper, it takes at least another seven days for mail to be forwarded to whatever RV Park he is visiting.  Because of attempts to murder him and recent death threats, safety requires that WINDSOR move a lot.  This can cause additional delays.
    3. WINDSOR must be served and communicated with at windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com.

WINDSOR MUST BE ISSUED AN ORDER ON HIS MOTION FOR REHEARING, AND HE MUST BE GIVEN THE PROPER TIME TO RESPOND TO ANY OBJECTION

    1. Rule 44 (2) provides: “Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial….”
    2. There has been no “order of denial,” so the time has not started to run on rehearing.
    3. WINDSOR is a private individual. He is not a nongovernmental corporation so a corporate disclosure statement is not appropriate or required.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests:

    1. that this Motion be granted;
    2. that an order be issued confirming that there was a Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648;
    3. that an order be issued reflecting the Due Process Notice and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. Harris, on parties in Case No. 22-7648 of the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court;
    4. that the Opinion of the Court be provided;
    5. that the vote of each Justice be indicated in Case No. 22-7648;
    6. that the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process;
    7. that an order be issued that WINDSOR must be served and communicated with at windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com;
    8. that this Motion be granted – motion Tto require confirmation of a Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648 and Issuance of an Order so confirming; order reflecting the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court in Case No. 22 7648, the Due Process Notice, and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. Harris, of OPINION in Case No. 22-7648 on each party; Record of votes by each Justice in Case No. 22-7648; Order that the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that this Motion dated November 27, 2023 be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648 at no charge, including all audit data; and if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. Harris be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648, at no charge, including all audit data; that Windsor be provided copies of letters and orders issued in every case considered in Conference since 02/01/2008; that if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. Harris;
    9. that this Court grant such other relief as is appropriate.

Submitted this 27th day of November 2023,

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C.§1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

FURTHER SAITH AFFIANT NOT.

This 27th day of November 2023,

 William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this Application has been prepared in Century 12-point font, one of the font and point selections approved by this Court and meets the requirements of this Court.

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William M. Windsor, do swear that on this date, November 27, 2023, I have served the enclosed MOTION on the DEFENDANTS in the above proceeding or their counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

Solicitor General of the United States

Room 5614, Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530–0001.

RYAN K. BUCHANAN – GABRIEL A. MENDEL

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY — ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

600 United States Courthouse

75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Telephone: 404-581-6000 — Facsimile: 404-581-6181

Email: gabriel.mendel@usdoj.gov

 

This 27th day of November 2023,

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

 

Bill Windsor Appellants Brief in Attempted Murder by 18-Wheeler Finally Docketed

windsor-bill-1983-04-02-ranch-facebook-photo-200w

After almost three months, Bill Windsor Appellants Brief in Attempted Murder by 18-Wheeler has finally been docketed.  Please excuse numbering errors as WordPress caused these in the copy and paste process:

Here is the PDF: 6D23-2476-APPELLANTS-BRIEF-on-Merits-Inital-2023-08-25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

APPEAL OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA SIXTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM WINDSOR,                                CASE NO.: 6D23-2476

 

CASE NO. 2018-CA-010270-O

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

ROBERT KEITH LONGEST, an individual, and BOISE CASCADE BUILDING MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C., a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

William M. Windsor, Plaintiff, Appellant 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108 352-###-#### — windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

Matthew J. Conigliaro, Defendants’ Appellate Attorneys Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607, (813) 229-4254 mconigliaro@carltonfields.com, devans@carltonfields.com, tpaecf@cfdom.net

Blake Mansker — Scott Warburton, Defendants’ Attorneys Adams | Coogler, P.A., 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1600, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, 561 -478-4500 Fax: 561-478-7847 bmansker@adamscoogler.com, rurban@adamscoogler.com, swarburton@adamscoogler.com, and ajohnson@adamscoogler.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………i

TABLE OF CITATIONS………………………………………………………. ii

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………………. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………. 40
ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………41
ARGUMENT I — THE DEFENDANTS NEVER FILED A
LAWFUL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, SO THERE WAS
NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES
OR THE DEFENDANTS. WINDSOR WON BY DEFAULT….. 41
ARGUMENT II — WINDSOR WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS
IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA…………………………………. 42

ARGUMENT III — THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR FLORIDA STATUTE TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO

DENY OR REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-
REPRESENTATION……………………………………………………. 57
ARGUMENT IV — THE 03/22/2023-ORDER VIOLATES
FLORIDA STATUTE 38.10, THE GENERAL FLORIDA
DISQUALIFICATION STATUTE……………………………………. 58

ARGUMENT V — THE CASES CITED BY JUDGE JEFF ASHTON DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AS HE DID……..59

ARGUMENT VI — THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY

WINDSOR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF……………………….. 61

ARGUMENT VII — THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OTHER

FILINGS BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNSIGNED AND MUST

BE DISREGARDED AND CONSIDERED VOID…………………………………. 63

ARGUMENT VIII — THIS CASE INVOLVES VOID ORDERS AND

JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT……………………………… 65

ARGUMENT IX — THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY

WINDSOR THE RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE AND

DISQUALIFY JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON…………………..65

ARGUMENT X — THE ACTIONS OF JEFF ASHTON AND

THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF

18 U.S.C. 1519………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

ARGUMENT XI — JEFF ASHTON AND THE CLERK OF

COURT DESTROYED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED

FLORIDA STATUTE 839.13………………………………………………………………………………….. 68

ARGUMENT XII — THERE ARE NO FACTUAL FINDINGS

TO SUPPORT DISMISSAL……………………………………………………………………………………… 69

ARGUMENT XIII — JEFF ASHTON COMMITTED MANY

VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, RULES, AND CODES………………………. 69

ARGUMENT XIV — THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO

REQUIRE WINDSOR TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR HAVE

HIS CASE DISMISSED, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS IN

CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………….. xi

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………………….xii

VERIFICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xiii

 

iii
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES PAGE NUMBER

18 U.S.C. 1519……………………………………………………41, 67

18 U.S.C. 4……………………………………………………………..72

ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility……………………….

Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968)…………..…62

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978)………………………62

Cannon v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1975)

14 Cal. 3d 678, 694……………………………………………..62

Canon 3E………………………………………………………….51, 52

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978)….51

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978)….66

Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension,

508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted)…………..54, 55

Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957)………………………51

Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957)………………………66

Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass,

417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…………………………..64

Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932)….51, 66

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)………………………….62

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)………………..62

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905………………62

Faretta v. California (1975)…………………………………………62

Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978)…….62

Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct……………………..12

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct……………………… 51, 52, 59

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3……….66

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3-B (7) and E. 2 I

.……………………………………………………………….59, 66

Florida Constitution § 9……………………………………….42, 61

Florida Criminal Statute 839.13………………………………..

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule-2.330…………….59

iv

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.140……………………42

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.190 (e)………………..35

Florida Rules of Judicial Admin 2.160………………………59, 66

Florida Statute 38.02………………………………………………..59

Florida Statute 38.10………………………………………………..59

Florida Statute 839.13………………………………………………68

Florida Statute 92.525……………………………………………..xiii

Florida Statutes……………………………………………………….59

Geiler v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1973)

10 Cal.3d 270, 286………………………………………………..62

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893)……………………62

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970)…………………….53

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966)……………………..62

Gonzalez v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, (1983)

33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374…………………………………………62

Haines v. Kerner (1972)……………………………………………….62

In Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)………………….61

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)…………………………….56

In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66…………………56

In re: Windsor, Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648…………………………………………..…1, 28, 65

In re: Windsor, Case#6-21-bk-04061 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida…..……………….…..2

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959)………………62

Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971)……….54, 55

Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,

172, (1951)…………………………………………………….51, 66

Judiciary Act of 1789…………………………………………………61

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885)…….62

Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960)

………………………………………………………………………..54, 55

Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994)………………………………….54

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972)…….56

Lowery v. Kaplan 650 So. 2d 114 (4 DCA 1995)………………58

Maid of the Mist v. Alcatraz Media, Superior Court of Gwinnett County Georgia, Case#05A-10097-3……………2

Maid of the Mist v. Alcatraz Media, USDCNDGA

v

Case#1-06-CV-0714-ODE-Docket—361-362……………..….2

Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894)

……………………………………………………………………..…..52, 53

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980)….51, 53, 66

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976)……………….66

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)………….62

Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008)………56

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603……….62

Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc.,

184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966)……………………………64

Ninth Judicial Circuit Courtroom Decorum Policy……………..12

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442………………….62

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954)

…………………………………………………………………………..54, 55

Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)…………………..62

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.)

738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824)…………………………………56, 62

Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972)………………………54, 55

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals…………………………………………………….62

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc)……………………………………………..57

Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233………………………………………….62

Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)……………………………………………………………64

Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate 613 So, 2d 515 (3DCA 1993)…………58

Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin………………………………..51, 52

Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.….64

Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association………………………………………..62

Rule 9.210(a)(2)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure…………………………………………………………….xii

Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982)……………….

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)……………………………62

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)………………62

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649………………………………….62

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)…………..53

vi

State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613

(1939)…………………………………………………………..51, 66

State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930)…………………………………………………………..52, 66

Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037……..54

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332……………………………62

U.S. Constitution……………………………………………………..61

U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, § 1……………….

U.S. Constitution Sixth Amendment…………………………….44

U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990)………………56

U.S.C. § 1654.…………………………………………………………61

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261

(1882)……………………………………………………………….62

Wanda I. Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So.3d 916 (Fla. App. 2020)……………………………………………………………….43

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir.

1996)……………………………………………………………….62

Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA

2014)……………………………………………………………….42

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

  1. This is a civil case for personal injury negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. An Order of Dismissal against WINDSOR with Prejudice was dated 07/18/2023 in Case #2018-CA-00270-O. [APPENDIX-5001.]
  2. But on 07/24/2023, in Appellate-Case#6D23-2476, the Clerk issued an Order to Show Cause within twenty days why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [APPENDICES—5002-6357.]
  3. And on 07/31/2023, in Appellate-Case#6D23-2476, an Order for Immediate Filing of Brief was issued. WINDSOR was given 30 days to serve the Initial Brief. [APPENDICES-5003-5004.]

So, here it is.

  1. WINDSOR has not received hearing transcripts that have been promised. [APPENDICES 6405-6406-6407-6408.]
  2. WINDSOR currently has pending U.S. Supreme Court Case #22-7648, distributed for Conference of 09/26/2023. [APPENDICES-5005-5006.] These cases are related; WINDSOR is the Pro-Se Plaintiff in both cases, and both cases involve intentional abuse of WINDSOR in denial of his Constitutional rights.

2

  1. In 2005 at age 56, WINDSOR thought judges were honest and court was where justice is done. On 08/29/2005, WINDSOR, who was retired, was sued in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County Georgia, Case#05A-10097-3. The sworn complaint [APPENDIX-5007] was completely false as was proven in depositions and affidavits. [APPENDIX-5008.] See USDCNDGA Case#1-06-CV-0714-ODE-Docket—361-362. [APPENDIX-6358.]
  2. Despite the overwhelming facts and the law, Judge Orinda D. Evans (“JUDGE EVANS”) entered an order for the Plaintiffs. [APPENDIX-5009.] WINDSOR has sworn under penalty of perjury that her Order contained 210 false statements. [APPENDIX-6403.] WINDSOR believes a 32-year federal judge doesn’t make 210 “errors” in one order; she committed 210 corrupt acts to benefit the largest law firm in Georgia.
  3. The actions of JUDGE EVANS, Judge Thomas W. Thrash (“JUDGE THRASH,”) and the 11TH CIRCUIT cost WINDSOR millions of dollars and wiped out his finances. He has struggled financially ever since and, at age 74, is in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (Case#6-21-bk-04061 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida). [APPENDICES-5011-5012.]

3

  1. WINDSOR was brought up by wonderful parents who never lied, and they taught him this important lesson. WINDSOR has never lied in a legal matter, and he became committed to trying to make a difference in the legal system with those, like himself, who could not afford attorneys.
  2. Blessed with a MENSA IQ, very strong reading and comprehension skills, and 42-words-per-minute typing speed with two fingers, WINDSOR studied paralegal work and, in 2010, began helping people (at no charge) who could not afford attorneys or paralegals (63% of the parties in civil courts today). 13 years later, he has helped several thousand people for free.
  3. In 1967, WINDSOR began working in radio and television. He was in a special Press Corps at the Apollo 11 Launch. In 1977, he began publishing magazines.
  4. In 2008, WINDSOR began publishing articles online about Pro-Se issues, and in 2009, he began hosting an online radio show for those who could not afford attorneys. In 2010, he hosted an online video conference and was contacted by over 10,000 people who wanted to tell him their stories of INjustice. This led to WINDSOR driving to all 50 states and DC in 2012 and 2013 to film

4

 

a documentary about government, judicial, and law enforcement corruption. The plan was to film 51 people, but 2500 showed up to be filmed. He managed to film 1500 in a year. Constituents of members of the House and Senate met WINDSOR in D.C. to personally deliver the Documentary to their legislators in 2013. (See https://www.LawlessAmerica.com and https://www.YouTube.com/LawlessAmerica.)

  1. In late May 2011, WINDSOR was informed by radio talk show hosts of a plan to have him killed. WINDSOR notified the FBI and spoke with agent Harry Hammick but nothing was investigated. (See https://lawlessamerica.com/william-m-windsor-again-concerned-with-threats-from-the-us-government/.)
  2. WINDSOR received hundreds of threats from people on the other side of stories he shared. It began about the time he managed to help encourage a judge to vacate an order that required a 13-year-old girl to have unsupervised sleep-over visits with her biological father who sexually molested her.
  3. WINDSOR seems to be hated by every dishonest judge he encounters. His legal history is filled with dishonest and corrupt acts by judges.

5

  1. On 08/04/2013, an attempt was made to murder WINDSOR. He was shot at on the Interstate in Montana, but the bullets hit a car to his right. [APPENDICES-5013-5014.] He received an email taking credit for the shooting, and WINDSOR was able to trace the IP to identify the shooter as Sean Boushie, a Montana man who had threatened WINDSOR hundreds of times because he filmed a woman Sean Boushie hated. [APPENDIX-5015.] See https://www.SeanBoushie.com. Two police departments, two sheriffs departments, and four courts did nothing. It became clear to WINDSOR that Boushie was protected by government people.
  2. On 05/05/2017, an 18-wheeler smashed into WINDSOR at 70 miles per hour on the Florida Turnpike and sent WINDSOR and his car airborne. [APPENDIX-5054.]
  3. MRIs, CT-SCANS, X-Rays, Ultrasounds, Nerve Conduction Studies, and more have been done since 05/05/2017. MRIs taken on 03/31/2023 reveal that WINDSOR’s injuries have progressed as there has been no medical treatment due to no money. He now has three Herniated Discs in his back, five Herniated Discs in his neck, ten Disc Bulges, and a Diastasis Recti abdominal injury… all generated by the DEFENDANTS on

6

 

05/05/2017. [APPENDICES-5016-5017.]

  1. WINDSOR is in constant pain. He can barely walk with assistance. He has no balance. He has fallen as many as 100 times. He uses a walker and a cane, but he cannot go more than 30-feet without needing to rest.
  2. He has difficulty sleeping and never more than a few hours at a time. He has lost 12 teeth and was recently told all remaining teeth must be extracted. This has been caused by medication WINDSOR takes for anxiety due to the accident and aftermath.
  3. WINDSOR’s only hope for some relief came from this personal injury lawsuit (Case #2018-CA-010270-O (“010270”)) as his personal insurance coverage ran out long ago. WINDSOR was in excellent physical health before he was crushed on 05/05/2017.
  4. 010270 was instituted in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County, Florida on 09/20/2018. [APPENDIX-5018.] It was filed by Dan Newlin & Partners (“NEWLIN”). The filing fee was paid. [APPENDIX-6362-P.30.] 010270 was assigned to Judge Lisa T. Munyon. (“JUDGE MUNYON”). NEWLIN did not consult with WINDSOR, and the Complaint contained stupid errors.

7

  1. NEWLIN began Discovery in the case when the Complaint was filed. [APPENDICES–5062-5063-5064-5065.]
  2. On 10/10/2018, Discovery was filed by the DEFENDANTS,

but unsigned. [APPENDICES-5066-6304.] DISREGARD.1 Answers to Interrogatories were also unsigned. [APPENDICES-5068-5069.]

DISREGARD.

  1. On 11/16/2018, the DEFENDANTS filed Answers to Admissions, and both were signed with signed Certificates of Service as well. [APPENDICES-5070-5071.] So, the DEFENDANTS know how to sign.
  2. But the Answers contain false statements and evade providing valid answers. [APPENDIX-5070–#3-#4-#6.] [APPENDIX-5071–#6-#8.] DISREGARD.
  1. After NEWLIN was terminated, WINDSOR sought additional discovery. [APPENDICES-6319-6320-6321-6322-6323-6324-5052-5053-5057-5058-5051.]
  2. Virtually everything filed by the DEFENDANTS in 010270 has been unsigned and violates the Rules. APPENDIX-5019 is a
  • Unsworn statements must be disregarded by this court. This NOTICE will be used each time. APPENDIX-6410 shows all filings are unsworn.

 8

DOCKET, and a check of filings by the DEFENDANTS will show them unsigned. APPENDIX-6410 is an analysis of every filing by the DEFENDANTS. It shows all 97 unsigned. These must be disregarded by the court in considering FACTS.

 

  1. The DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned ANSWER on 10/10/2018. [APPENDIX-5021.] It contains LIES.
  2. 010270 was transferred to Judge John Marshall Kest (“JUDGE KEST”) on 08/25/2020 [APPENDIX-6351], and he approved an amended complaint on 10/20/2020. [APPENDIX-5082-08/19/2020.] [APPENDIX-5020-10/10/2020.]
  3. 010270 is about auto negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, dishonesty, abuse, corruption, and the destruction of WINDSOR’s health and life.
  4. Case#010270 has been pending for five years with seven Defense attorneys and four trial settings [APPENDICES-5023-5024-5025-5026.]
  5. On 02/05/2019, NEWLIN took a one-hour Deposition of LONGEST. WINDSOR was not notified of the Deposition, and the information he needed was neither sought nor obtained by NEWLIN. [APPENDICES-5075-6241.]

9

 

  1. On 04/08/2019, WINDSOR’s Deposition was taken. In a stunning change, a NEWLIN attorney actually notified him of the date and time. [APPENDIX-6242.]
  2. On 10/04/2019, a Mediation was held. It was a complete waste of time. The DEFENDANTS’ attorney claimed he was unfamiliar with the case, and another NEWLIN attorney was definitely unfamiliar with the case.
  3. On 02/26/2020, a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for WINDSOR was filed by NEWLIN. [APPENDIX-6409.]
  4. On 03/19/2020, WINDSOR terminated NEWLIN [APPENDICES–5049-5050] because WINDSOR was completely unhappy with their work and lack of work.
  5. On 03/19/2020, an ORDER confirmed removal of NEWLIN as WINDSOR’s attorney. [APPENDIX-5050.]
  6. WINDSOR began representing himself Pro-Se. He is not an attorney, but he has independently studied law and has represented himself in various actions for over 25-years.
  7. When WINDSOR obtained the files from NEWLIN’S firm, he discovered an even worse job than he had anticipated. He began work on problems with motions to compel interrogatories, compel

10

 

production, and objections to admissions. The DOCKET shows this work. [APPENDIX-5019.]

  1. On 06/24/2020, WINDSOR also filed Motions for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court against both LONGEST and BOISE. [APPENDICES-5055-5056.]
  2. On 06/24/2020, WINDSOR filed a sworn affidavit swearing as to the events of 05/05/2017. [APPENDIX-5054.]
  3. On 07/01/2020, WINDSOR filed Amended Motions for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court against both LONGEST and BOISE. [APPENDICES-5059-5060.]
  4. On 07/07/2020, a Hearing was held. [APPENDIX-6314.] The request to File an Amended Complaint was denied without prejudice and claimed paragraphs 15-21-22-23-24-25-26-46 were improperly plead and that the matters are barred from this litigation. On the Motion to Compel Incomplete Answers to Interrogatories, the Court required a better answer to interrogatory #8 and allowed the DEFENDANTS 20-days to answer. [APPENDICES-6315-6316-6317.]
  5. On 07/20/2020, the DEFENDANTS filed one of the most frivolous motions in the history of Florida civil courts.

11

 

DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to Determine if Plaintiff William Windsor is Mentally Competent to Represent Himself was filed. [APPENDIX-5061.] It’s as FRIVOLOUS as can be as part of their campaign of INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. DISREGARD.

  1. It became clear that the DEFENDANTS knew they could get away with anything. The attorneys repeatedly sought dismissal because they knew they would lose on the facts of the case. They also dreamed up outlandish motions to dismiss because they knew this would distress WINDSOR.
  2. On 07/27/2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing and Strike Competency Motion. [APPENDIX-5077.] It was denied. [APPENDIX-5078.]
  3. DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Obey USDC 02/12/2018 Order [APPENDIX-6411.] WINDSOR did not violate a federal court order, and that is not a state court issue. The USDC order provided only none sanction an only by the USDC. This Motion was about as frivolous as the motion to declare the Plaintiff incompetent.
  4. The DEFENDANTS filed over a dozen requests to dismiss

12

 

in 010270 – all baseless, yet the judges let them get away with it. They have claimed a plaintiff can have his case dismissed if he is old and has some memory challenges; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if a party uses social media; they have claimed use of social media violates the COURTROOM Decorum Policy; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if a member of the press for the last 57 years continued to publish; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if the Plaintiff is in bankruptcy and has no money to pay for an attorney; a case can be dismissed if a party files evidence. On top of all this, they lie and lie and lie.

  1. On 07/27/2020, the DEFENDANTS each filed a motion to dismiss due to a claim of failure to obey a USDC Order. [APPENDIX-6411.]
  2. On 07/28/2020, an Order was issued Denying WINDSOR’s Motion to Cancel 08/04/2020 Hearing and Motion to Strike DEFENDANTS’ Emergency Motion to require WINDSOR to Comply with the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. [APPENDIX-5078.].
  3. WINDSOR’s motions were either ignored or denied with no legal or factual basis. See the 010270-DOCKET for other filings as

13

 

there is not sufficient word count to address here. [APPENDIX-6399.]

  1. None of the exhibits presented by the DEFENDANTS in 010270 were authenticated as required by the Rules. The ONLY sworn or verified statements in five years are in APPENDIX-5139, so there is nothing to discuss about Facts when the only facts in the case are from WINDSOR.
  2. On 07/30/2020, WINDSOR filed First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Notices of Filing Exhibits. [APPENDICES-5080-5081-5083-5084-5085.] These exhibits provided evidence in opposition to DEFENDANTS’ Emergency Motion to Determine Competency and Enforce Adherence and for Sanctions and/or were in opposition to the 08/04/2020 hearing. Theses exhibits prove false claims in the DEFENDANTS’ Motions.
  3. On 08/04/2020, LONGEST and BOISE filed a Motion for Protective Order [APPENDIX-5091.]
  4. On 08/11/2020, Orders were issued denying WINDSOR’s Motions for Sanctions Against LONGEST and BOISE for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-5096-5097.] These Orders are outrageous. WINDSOR presented evidence of 196 violations.

14

 

  1. On 08/11/2020, WINDSOR filed a Response to Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Strike. [APPENDIX-5094.]
  2. On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed Exhibits in Opposition to DEFENDANTS’ 07/20/2020 Motion to Dismiss for use at 08/25/2020 Hearing. [APPENDICES-5100-5101-5102.]
  3. On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed a signed Request for Judicial Notice as to many cases. [APPENDIX-5099.]
  4. WINDSOR filed motions for sanctions with law and evidence galore, and the judges ignored them and then claimed WINDSOR violated the rules.
  5. On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed an extensive Memorandum of Law on filing restrictions. [APPENDIX-5103.]
  6. On 08/19/2020, an ORDER Granting Protective Order was issued on All Discovery Pending Determination of Competency and Dismissal. [APPENDIX-6333.]
  7. WINDSOR’s Motions for Reconsideration of Order on Motion for Sanctions Against LONGEST and BOISE for Fraud on the Court were filed on 08/23/2020. [APPENDICES-6334-6335.]
  8. On 08/20/2022, WINDSOR filed EXHIBITS for the 08/25/2020 HEARING. [APPENDICES-5104-5105.]

15

 

  1. On 08/22/2022, WINDSOR filed Requests for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on two orders. [010270-DOCKET-187-188.] Both were ignored.
  2. On 08/23/2020, WINDSOR signed and filed Motions for Reconsideration of orders on motions for sanctions for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-6334-6335.] WINDSOR believes the denial of these motions proves judicial corruption.
  3. On 08/24/2020, WINDSOR verified and filed a Motion for Continuance of the 08/25/2020 HEARING. [010270-DOCKET-192.]
  4. On 08/25/2020, WINDSOR filed his Response to the Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to determine if WINDSOR was Competent to Represent Himself and requiring him to Comply with the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. [APPENDIX-5108.] WINDSOR is not a member of the Florida Bar, and those rules CLEARLY apply ONLY to attorneys who are members.
  5. On 08/25/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify JUDGE MUNYON. [APPENDIX-6270.] It was granted. [APPENDIX-6413.] Judge John Marshall Kest (“JUDGE KEST”) was named to replace JUDGE MUNYON. [APPENDIX-6351.]
  6. WINDSOR’s Response to Motion for Competency, Motion

16

 

to Strike, and Motion for Sanctions was filed on 08/25/2020. [APPENDIX-5108.] This Notarized Response spelled out all the reasons the DEFENDANTS’ Motion was false, malicious, and frivolous.

  1. On 08/29/2020, Motions for Sanctions were filed by WINDSOR to Strike Answers of BOISE and LONGEST for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-5115-5116.] 149 reasons were detailed for each of the DEFENDANTS. 298 counts!
  2. On 09/21/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned unverified Response to WINDSOR’s Motions for Reconsideration. [APPENDIX-5122.]
  3. On 09/28/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify/Recuse JUDGE KEST. [APPENDICES-5124-5125.] It was denied improperly on 09/30/2020. [APPENDIX-5127.]
  4. On 10/01/2020, an ORDER was entered on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and For Sanctions. [APPENDIX-5128.] The DEFENDANTS’ Motions were DENIED with an excellent explanation.
  5. This Order did not grant any relief to the DEFENDANTS or place any requirements on WINDSOR.

17

 

  1. On 10/20/2020, WINDSOR actually had a motion partially granted. [APPENDIX-5020.] JUDGE KEST’s Order granted WINDSOR’s motion to amend the complaint. This gave WINDSOR two causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and cleaned up various errors by NEWLIN.
  2. On 11/20/2020, an ORDER Denying WINDSOR’s Second Motion to Disqualify JUDGE KEST was issued. [APPENDIX-5137.]
  3. APPENDIX-5082 contains the Third Amended Complaint approved by JUDGE KEST. It has causes of action against each Defendant for Negligence and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. [APPENDIX-5082—EXHIBIT-3-PP.12-14.]
  4. On 10/01/2020, DEFENDANTS filed a Motion for Rehearing of Motion to Dismiss Based on Potential Miscommunication. [APPENDIX-5129.] WINDSOR responded. [APPENDIX-5130.] The Motion was denied. [APPENDIX-5131.]
  5. On 11/03/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of JUDGE KEST. [APPENDIX-5132.] It was denied. [APPENDICES-5132-6345.]

18

 

  1. On 11/04/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned, unverified notice of opposition to WINDSOR’s emergency motion for stay or continuance or in the alternative their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. [APPENDIX-5134.] The Opposition makes many false and malicious statements. Due to no signature and no verification, WINDSOR will not waste time responding. DISREGARD.
  2. On 11/09/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Answer to the Amended Complaint. [APPENDIX-5022.]
  3. On 11/09/2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration of order of JUDGE KEST dated 10/20/2020 [APPENDIX-5135.]
  4. On 11/19/2020, WINDSOR filed a Second Verified Motion to Disqualify or Recuse JUDGE KEST. [APPENDIX-5136.] It was denied. [APPENDIX-5137.]
  5. On 11/24/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. [APPENDIX-5138.]
  6. On 01/01/2021, Jeffrey L. Ashton (“JEFF ASHTON”) became the “judge” in 010270. Since that date, JEFF ASHTON has entered 39 orders: APPENDICES-5144-5145-6300-5149-5152-

19

 

5155-5156-6298-6340-5180-5181-5182-5184-5185-5186-5187-

5189-5190-6296-5026-6294-6206-6207-6208-6336-6287-6234-

6237-6238-6246-6261-6262-6263-6264-6277-6278-6341-6343-

6302.

  1. Of the 39 Orders entered in 010270, not a single order granted relief to WINDSOR. This is the work of a corrupt judge.
  2. On 01/11/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6405 is the Transcript.]
  3. On 01/25/2021, DEFENDANTS filed the Affidavit of Scott L. Astrin. He lied about attorney’s fees. This is the only affidavit ever filed by the DEFENDANTS in 010270. Paragraphs 6-7-8 are false and constitute perjury. [APPENDIX-5139.] The DOCKET [APPENDIX-6399] shows there is no 10/10/2020-Order.
  4. On 01/27/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6406 is the Transcript.]
  5. On 02/10/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6407 is the Transcript.]
  6. On 02/17/2021, the two DEFENDANTS filed Emergency Motions to Require WINDSOR’S submissions to the court be reviewed, Approved and Signed by a Member of the Florida BAR

20

 

(“BAR MOTION”). [APPENDIX-5153.] This EMERGENCY Motion is filled with false claims. It is unsigned and unsworn. DISREGARD.

8 of the 11 pages have separate sections for Montana Litigation [PP.2-3], Northern District of Georgia Litigation [PP.3-8], Texas Litigation [PP.8-9], and Florida Litigation [PP.9-10]. The inclusion of Montana, Georgia, and Texas required significant evidence to be added to the Record by WINDSOR.

  1. On 02/18/2021, WINDSOR filed a signed verified Emergency Motion to Strike the BAR MOTION. It was filed pursuant to Rules, Statutes, Codes, and the Constitutions of Florida and the United States of America.” [APPENDIX-5154.] APPENDIX-5154 details why this “Emergency” Motion was a sham.
  2. On 02/23/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR’s Motion with one word “denied.” [APPENDIX-5156.]
  3. On 02/26/2021, WINDSOR filed a signed, sworn before a notary, 93-page Memorandum of Law regarding this Order [APPENDIX-5157] and a Motion for Reconsideration of the BAR MOTION [APPENDIX-5158.] It says: “There is no basis at all for the Defendants’ BAR MOTION, and there is NO EMERGENCY. The BAR MOTION is filled with false and deceptive information that may not

21

 

be considered as it was not provided in an affidavit under oath. On 02/23/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied Windsor’s Motion. This is a FRIVOLOUS ORDER – no basis in fact or law.”

  1. APPENDIX-5158 makes excellent points with extensive citation to law.
  2. On 03/02/2021, JEFF ASHTON filed an Order to Show Cause. [APPENDIX-6299.] In the first paragraph, he states: “Defendants request the issuance of an Order to Show Cause….” The DEFENDANTS’ Motion did not make any such request. [APPENDIX-5153.] This is a false and malicious statement by JEFF ASHTON and is a crime. APPENDIX-5153 is THE ONLY filing by the DEFENDANTS on this issue as the DOCKET shows. [APPENDICES-5019-6399.]
  3. On 03/03/2021, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion to require WINDSOR’S submissions to the Court be reviewed, approved, and signed by a member of the Florida Bar and Memorandum of Law and Motion to find Pro Se Plaintiff in contempt of JUDGE KEST’s Order dated 10/01/2020 and Motion for Sanctions. [APPENDIX-5159.]

22

 

  1. On 03/02/2021, an ORDER to Show Cause for 04/05/2021 at 10:30am was issued. [APPENDIX-6299.]
  2. On 03/12/2021, WINDSOR’s signed, verified Motion to Strike STRANGE HIDDEN DOCKET ENTRY and Memorandum of Law was filed. [APPENDIX-5160.] WINDSOR believes this “strange hidden docket entry” was the combined effort of JEFF ASHTON and the Defense attorneys to hide the BAR MOTION from WINDSOR.
  3. On 03/12/2021, Motions to Strike Answer and Amended Answer, Enter a Decree Pro Confesso; Enter Judgment in favor of the PLAINTIFF; and Schedule the Jury Trial for Damages were filed. [APPENDICES-5161-5162.]
  4. On 03/16/2021, WINDSOR filed evidence. [APPENDICES-5162-5164-5165-5166-5167-5168-5169-5170-5171-5172-5173-5176-5177-5178.] This evidence was filed because the DEFENDANTS made false claims about emails WINDSOR sent, so he filed every cotton pickin’ one to prove the truth. APPENDIX-5176 is a notarized affidavit from WINDSOR setting the record straight on the false claims of the attorney for the DEFENDANTS.

23

 

  1. On 03/17/2021, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Strike Pleadings and Award Sanctions [APPENDIX-5174] and a Motion for Contempt for Violation of Rules. [APPENIX-5175].
  2. On 03/18/2021, WINDSOR filed motions that were important to his case. [APPENDICES-6297-6328-6329-6336-6337-6338-6339.]
  1. On 03/24/2021, JEFF ASHTON granted DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Motion for Protective Order. [APPENDIX-6340.]
  2. On 03/25/2021, JEFF ASHTON implemented a scheme to avoid dealing with all the violations. He sua sponte entered an order without notice or an opportunity to be heard. APPENDIX-5181:

“WHEREAS, the Court, on March, 2 2021 set for hearing an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff as the why the Court should not grant Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Require Pro Se Plaintiff William Windsor’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed By A Member of the Florida Bar on April 5, 2021.

“WHEREAS, since the issuance of the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has filed twenty-six items with the Clerk of Court in this matter. Among the motions, was a request for sixteen hours of hearing time on the Order to Show Cause. Among the matters filed, are item described as affidavits or exhibits totaling one thousand six-hundred-and-seventy-pages.

24

 

“The Clerk is hereby directed to decline to file any further documents by the pro se Plaintiff unless they contain a certificate by a member of the Florida Bar that have reviewed the matter and that the filing is appropriate. This Order shall remain in effect until close of business April, 5 2021.”

  1. Nothing filed was improper, and the evidence was necessary due to the unsworn lies of the attorneys.
  2. This violated the right to Due Process as it was issued without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
  3. On 04/05/2021, a hearing on the unlawfully scheduled Order to Show Cause was held. [APPENDIX-6295.]
  4. On 04/05/2021 at 3:13p.m., an Interim Order on Pro-Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5185.] It stated that “the Court Order filed March 25, 2021 shall remain on full force and effect.” The 03/25/2021-ORDER is a void order issued in violation of Due Process as there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard.
  5. On 04/05/2021 at 3:14p.m., an Interim Order On Pro-Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5186.] It stated that “the Court Order filed March 25, 2021 shall remain on full force and effect.” The 03/25/2021-ORDER is a void order issued in violation of Due Process.

25

 

  1. On 04/05/2021 at 3:24p.m., an ORDER Striking Pro-Se Filings from 03/27/2021 to 04/05/2021 was issued. [APPENDIX-5187.]
  2. JEFF ASHTON likely has schizophrenia.
  3. On 04/06/2021, an ORDER issued on the purported Courts Rule to Show Cause Requiring Pro-Se Plaintiff Submissions be reviewed by a Member of the Florida Bar. [APPENDIX-5189.] The ‘Show Cause” was a fraud.
  4. On 04/06/2021, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion for Final Judgment against WINDSOR for failure to pay attorney’s fees and costs in contempt of this court’s order dated 02/04/2021. [APPENDIX-5188.] This outrage was discharged in bankruptcy.
  5. On 04/06/2021, an Amended Interim Order on Pro Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5190.]
  6. On 09/08/2021, WINDSOR filed bankruptcy. [APPENDIX-5191.] Notices were docketed. [APPENDICES-5192-5193.] JEFF ASHTON received all of this and was totally aware of WINDSOR’s financial situation from hearings and filings.

26

 

  1. On 08/10/2022 and 10/11/2022, WINDSOR filed REQUESTs FOR TRIAL DATE. [APPENDICES-6382-6383-6384.] APPENDIX-6384 explained that funds from 010270 would be used to pay creditors in bankruptcy.
  2. On 10/13/2022, DEFENDANTS filed a Motion to Strike PLAINTIFFS Motion for Trial. [APPENDIX-6418.]
  3. On 10/21/2022, a Uniform ORDER Set the Case for Jury Trial on 05/22/2023. [APPENDIX-5026.] There has been no trial.
  4. On 10/25/2022, DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Amended Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories was filed. [APPENDICES-6385-6386.] WINDSOR objected in a sworn response. [APPENDIX-6387.]
  5. On 12/05/2022, WINDSOR filed a Request for Conference. [APPENDIX-6394.]
  6. 12/21/2022, WINDSOR filed a Second Amended Disclosure of Expert Witnesses. [APPENDIX-6391.] On 12/22/2022, Defendants’ unsigned Disclosure of Fact Witnesses was filed. [APPENDIX-6392.] On 12/20/2022, Defendants’ unsigned Disclosure of Expert Witnesses was filed. [APPENDIX-6393.]

DISREGARD.

 

27

 

  1. On 12/26/2022, WINDSOR permanently lost the use of his left hand when a fall aggravated the injuries from the accident 6 years before. [APPENDIX-6404.] Nerve Conduction Studies show that his nerves do not work to his left hand. [APPENDIX-6400.] On 03/31/2023, he had MRIs for his cervical spine and lumbar spine. [APPENDICES-5041-5042.] The Reports show significant Disc Herniation and Disc Bulges with increased size and quantity in three years. [APPENDICES-6414-6415-6516-6417.]
  2. WINDSOR’s quality of life was ruined by the Defendants. [APPENDICES-5032-5033-5034-5035-5036-5037-5038-5039-5040-5041-5042-6400-6414-6415-6516-6417.] He has no life now other than trying to obtain medical and financial relief in this matter.
  3. Some believe the 05/05/2017 “accident” was attempted murder because Sean Boushie (attempted murderer on a Montana Interstate in 2013) was involved according to Carrie Broussard, an eyewitness who called 911 on 05/05/2017. [APPENDICES-5044-5045-5046.] 2 WINDSOR spoke with her, and she told him she had been in contact with Sean Boushie. She then lied about it at her
  • WINDSOR will file audio recordings on a Flash Drive in a separate filing with the Clerk.

28

 

deposition. It was strange that no motorist tried to help WINDSOR.

It was like there was a blockade of cars behind him.

  1. WINDSOR needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in surgery, but corrupt Judge JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR any and all Constitutional rights. The absence of due process in this case is based in part on issues presented in SC22-7648.
  2. Jerome Wilt was an eyewitness who called 911 on 05/05/2017 after observing WINDSOR’S wreck. [APPENDIX-5047.] He was the only eyewitness other than WINDSOR because trucker LONGEST has sworn he saw nothing. [APPENDIX-5048-P.22-LL.1-2–P.19-LL.9-25–P.20-LL.1-16.]
  3. On 01/04/2023, Jerome Wilt testified at his deposition that he saw the 18-wheeler (semi) cause the accident, and he was afraid WINDSOR was seriously injured. He described how the semi crashed into WINDSOR’s lane, lifted all four wheels of his little convertible off the ground, and spun him around 180-degrees. [APPENDIX-5048-P.8-LL7-14;P.23-LL4-25;P.24-LL1-15;P.32-LL11-25;P.33-LL1-25;P.34-LL1-25;P.35-LL1-25;P.36-LL1-24;P.43-LL 7-25;P.42-LL1,16-25;P.43-LL1-8;P.46-LL8-25;P.47-LL1-4,20-24.]
  4. On 01/05/2023, Defendants filed an unsigned Motion for

29

 

Protective Order and Objection to WINDSOR’s Request to Not Utilize a Court Reporter and/or Stenographer at all Depositions. [APPENDIX-5194.] DISREGARD.

  1. On 01/04/2023, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Law in Objection to Subpoena to Dr. Stephen Goll. [APPENDIX-5195.]

DISREGARD. WINDSOR observed that Dr. Goll brought a detailed typed report of the results of his examination of WINDSOR before he conducted an examination. WINDSOR has been blocked from discovery.

  1. From the early days in the case, the DEFENDANTS violated statutes, codes, and rules. Each of the judges involved in the case has allowed them to do so with no action taken against them. WINDSOR knew he was dealing with a corrupt group of judges and extremely dishonest attorneys. But he never dreamed until recently that they would get away with stealing his life. WINDSOR has learned one valuable lesson: Use an incompetent high-profile law firm because the facts and the law are very much secondary to whose palm has been greased.
  2. DEFENDANTS’ Motion for Protective Order on All Discovery Pending Determination of Competency and Dismissal was

30

 

filed 08/04/2020. [APPENDIX-5091.] DISREGARD. There was no legal basis whatsoever for the motion to dismiss. Both DEFENDANTS filed it to defame WINDSOR with the Court and to make sure JUDGE KEST was aware that WINDSOR had been a leading activist on judicial corruption. This established extrajudicial bias against WINDSOR, someone who will fight dishonest and corrupt judges until the cows come home.

  1. JEFF ASHTON became the judge in January 2021. He demonstrated complete bias against WINDSOR from his first involvement.
  2. On 01/27/2021, JEFF ASHTON’s Judicial Assistant, Keitra Davis, emailed WINDSOR to set some deadlines. WINDSOR requested that the 02/02/2021 hearing be reset for another date as the deadline she set had passed. There was no response. [APPENDIX-6303.] His signed Motion provided financial information showing his sole source of income was social security and he had debts of $1,500,000.
  3. On 01/28/2021, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration of his Emergency Motion for Stay and/or Continuance. [APPENDIX-5140.] There was no response to this

31

 

Motion or WINDSOR’s emails as was sadly routine.

  1. On 01/30/2021, WINDSOR filed a Second Emergency Motion for Stay and/or Continuance. [APPENDIX-5141.] WINDSOR was admitted to Waterman Hospital in Tavares, Florida and spent all day on 02/02/2021 with medical personnel; he was unable to attend the hearing.
  2. On 02/02/2021, WINDSOR filed a Notarized Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON with a Notarized Affidavit and Notarized Affidavit of Prejudice. [APPENDICES-5146-5147-5148]. It was denied on totally bogus grounds. [APPENDIX-6300.]
  3. JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of JUDGE KEST at 10:13a.m. on 02/01/2021. [APPENDIX-5145.] Evelyn Wood in her prime could not have read the documents in three-hours-and-thirty-nine-minutes. JEFF ASHTON committed perjury when he wrote that he had reviewed the file.
  4. On 02/01/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied the second motion for stay without explanation. [APPENDIX-5144.]
  5. On 02/02/2021, JEFF ASHTON purportedly conducted a hearing without WINDSOR. [APPENDIX-6301.] WINDSOR was

32

 

hospitalized and was denied the opportunity to defend himself and to show that the attorneys for the DEFENDANTS had likely committed fraud upon the court with their outrageous request for attorney’s fees. The “Minutes” indicate that there was no testimony, and there was no evidence presented. JUDGE KEST only awarded attorney’s fees on two motions to compel. JEFF ASHTON allowed Scott L. Astrin to inflate the bill, and he did not have to provide any proof.

  1. On 04/01/2021, WINDSOR filed a second Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. [APPENDICES 6396-6397.] APPENDIX–6396 is file-stamped by the Clerk of Court, but note on the Docket [APPENDIX-6362] that JEFF ASHTON had these filings removed from the court’s DOCKET. This is a crime – Florida Criminal Statute 839.13. Complete evidence was provided to the Orange County Sheriff on 03/10/2023, and a case was opened.
  2. JUDGE MUNYON, JUDGE KEST, JEFF ASHTON, and the Defendants and their attorneys are responsible for this bankruptcy. If it was not for their dishonesty and corruption, WINDSOR would have received enough money from 010270 to avoid the costs and stigma of bankruptcy. He might be able to walk. He could regain

33

 

the use of his left hand. He could have teeth.

  1. On 09/08/2021, WINDSOR filed an Application for Bankruptcy. [APPENDIX-5191.] [APPENDIX-5192.] [APPENDIX-5193.]
  2. On 08/10/2022, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay to allow WINDSOR to pursue 010270 as his bankruptcy plan is to pay all debts in full with recovery from 010270. [APPENDIX-6363, P.1.]
  3. WINDSOR tried unsuccessfully for many months to find an attorney to represent him in 010270. Then he tried to find an attorney who would review and sign his pleadings at low cost, and no one would. He even ran ads on Craigslist. [APPENDIX-6364.]
  4. On 12/15/2022, WINDSOR’s bankruptcy attorney, Jeff Badgley, reluctantly agreed to review, sign, and approve his filings.
  5. On 01/10/2023, WINDSOR’s Application for Indigent Status was approved by the Clerk. [APPENDIX-5197.] JEFF ASHTON received this and had detailed data about WINDSOR’s financial disaster through his Indigence Filing and his Bankruptcy Filing.
  6. On 01/17/2023, the DEFENDANTS’ attorney, Jonathan Blake Mansker, called WINDSOR’s Bankruptcy attorney and

34

 

informed him that he would pursue sanctions and charges against him if he continued to sign WINDSOR’s pleadings. [APPENDIX-6398.] DISREGARD. WINDSOR believes he did this solely to conspire with JEFF ASHTON to damage WINDSOR.

  1. On 01/24/2023, WINDSOR conducted an inspection of what was supposed to be the truck that hit him on 05/05/2017. Attorney Jonathan Blake Mansker lied and concealed the actual truck by using a different truck. APPENDIX-6401 is the fake truck. APPENDIX-6402 is the truck WINDSOR photographed after he was hit on 05/05/2017.
  2. WINDSOR filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 01/31/2023 on the issue of liability for Negligence. [APPENDIX-6209.] It was never heard.
  3. On 02/10/2023, the DEFENDANTS’ attorney filed DEFENDANTS’ Amended Motion to Strike Improperly Named Individuals from Plaintiff’s Witness List and Motion for Sanctions Against Both WINDSOR and Attorney Jeffrey L. Badgley for “Continuing to File Frivolous and Repetitive Filings.” [APPENDIX-6222-P.3.] There was nothing frivolous or repetitive. [APPENDIX-5026.] The judges and attorneys identified as witnesses

35

 

are witnesses to two causes for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Amended witness lists are authorized by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.190 (e).

  1. On many occasions, WINDSOR informed JEFF ASHTON that he was in bankruptcy and could not afford an attorney. JEFF ASHTON was well aware of the bankruptcy filing, the stay, and WINDSOR’s approval as Indigent. See, for example, SOC ¶¶20, 119, 120, 128, 130, 138, 146, 147, 148, 151.
  2. On 02/16/2023, WINDSOR filed a Verified Affidavit regarding emails. [APPENDIX-6365.]
  3. On 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered a sua sponte order REVOKING WINDSOR’s right of self-representation

(“02/21/2023-ORDER”). [APPENDIX-6237.] The 02/21/2023-ORDER shows clearly that there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. It says: “…having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully informed, finds as follows….” [APPENDIX-6237-P.2.] the Order says:

  1. The content of the order is false. The history of this case is replete with corrupt acts by JEFF ASHTON and wrongdoing by the attorneys for the DEFENDANTS. JEFF ASHTON never has any

36

 

facts to back up his lies, such as “review by counsel have utterly failed” and “plaintiff threatened a witness during cross examination.” Jeff Badgley did a fine job reviewing the filings; no fault was ever identified. WINDSOR never threatened a witness. This is proven by WINDSOR’s sworn affidavit and the Transcript. WINDSOR has never threatened, harassed, or abused. He has zealously represented himself, which is something legal representatives are supposed to do. (ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility.)

  1. On 02/24/2023, WINDSOR filed a Complaint Against JEFF ASHTON with the State of Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. There is no copy in the APPENDIX as the Commission requires confidentiality. [APPENDIX-6366.]
  2. On 02/28/2023, WINDSOR terminated his bankruptcy attorney, Jeffrey Badgley, because he refused to sign documents after he was threatened by the DEFENDANTS’ attorney and Mansker filed charges against him. [APPENDICES-6371-6372-6373.] WINDSOR had prepaid Jeffrey Badgley in 2018, and he cannot afford an attorney. He has to represent himself in bankruptcy court.

37

 

  1. On 03/08/2023, WINDSOR discovered evidence of a crime by JEFF ASHTON. On 04/01/2021 at 05:29:58 a.m., Windsor had filed his second written effort to get Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton removed. [APPENDIX-6367.] He found the Orange County Clerk’s Proof of Filing and Service, filed 04/01/2021 at 05:30a.m. [APPENDIX-6368.] He went to the Clerk’s website and discovered it was NOT ON THE DOCKET. [APPENDIX-6369.] WINDSOR has a 2021 pdf of the Docket when it showed that filing! [APPENDIX-6370–04/01/2021.]
  2. JEFF ASHTON is dishonest. He stole or had someone steal those documents. He has obstructed justice.
  3. On 03/10/2023, WINDSOR filed a criminal complaint against JEFF ASHTON with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and a case was opened. JEFF ASHTON violated Florida Statutes 839.13 – Falsifying records.
  4. On 03/20/2023 at 2:47p.m., WINDSOR, a Party, filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton [APPENDICES-6375-6374]. These were both file-stamped and docketed by Tiffany Moore Russell, the Clerk of Court. [APPENDIX-6362–DOCKET,P.2.]

38

 

WINDSOR sent them directly to her by mail since he was being blocked from filing.

  1. On 04/01/2023, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Appellant’s Brief. [APPENDIX-6376.] There was no response. [APPENDIX-6377.]
  2. On 01/10/2023, the Clerk of Court declared WINDSOR INDIGENT after review of his Application for Insolvency and Indigency. [APPENDIX-5197.] JEFF ASHTON received this and was totally aware of WINDSOR’s financial situation.
  3. On 02/01/2023, WINDSOR executed a sworn affidavit in 010270 detailing the 05/05/2017 accident. [APPENDIX-6211.] 3
  4. APPENDIX-6237 is a 02/21/2023 Order (“02/21/2023-ORDER”) “revoking Plaintiff’s right to self-representation.” It was entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The 02/21/2023-ORDER indicates WINDSOR, the Plaintiff in 010270, was given 30 days to obtain counsel. The 02/21/2023-ORDER was perhaps issued in an effort to head off the Third
  • Exhibits to affidavits and some motions and responses may be accessed on the Docket of 2018-CA-010270-O.

39

 

Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON [APPENDICES-6244-6245.] The 02/21/2023-ORDER is filled with false claims.

  1. APPENDIX-6246 is the 03/22/2023 Order (“03/22/2023-ORDER”) striking and denying WINDSOR’s Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON docketed at 11:22:45 am. The 03/22/2023-ORDER falsely claimed it was a violation of the court’s order of 02/21/2023, but Florida Statutes do not require a party to have representation on a motion to disqualify. And, the 03/22/2023-ORDER does not prohibit WINDSOR from filing; it only applies to the Clerk, and it does not attempt to unlawfully restrict the statute. [APPENDIX-6246-P.2.]
  2. On 04/19/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6408.] WINDSOR has been promised a transcript by the DEFENDANTS’ attorney, but nothing has been received. WINDSOR will supplement or amend this Brief when the missing transcripts are obtained.
  3. APPENDIX-6261 is a 04/25/2023 Order at 9:34p.m. (“04/25/2023-ORDER”) dismissing 010270 with Prejudice. The 04/25/2023-ORDER is jam packed with false, unfounded claims.

40

 

  1. APPENDIX-6263 is the 04/27/2023 Order at 7:12p.m. (“04/27/2023-ORDER-2”) dismissing 010270 with Prejudice. It is filled with false statements. WINDSOR was legally and financially unable to hire an attorney, and JEFF ASHTON knew it.
  2. APPENDIX-6378 is the 06/27/2023 Order of the Florida Supreme Court (“06/27/2023-ORDER”) denying any right of appeal. The 6DCA ensured that there would be no Florida Supreme Court review by intentionally issuing an unelaborated decision.
  3. APPENDIX-5001 is the 07/18/2023 Order (“07/18/2023-ORDER”) – a “FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.” 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

  1. WINDSOR isn’t your ordinary pro-se party. He is one of the leading authorities on pro se legal issues in America. And, he is in Chapter 13 bankruptcy where federal criminal laws are involved.
  2. This APPEAL should be quite a simple matter for an honest court. WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights to Due Process have been violated again and again and again. Courts and judges
  • WINDSOR does not believe any orders have been published.

41

 

have no discretion on Due Process issues. JEFF ASHTON denied Due Process, and he loses.

  1. This is a case of unbridled corruption. JEFF ASHTON and the attorneys involved have violated just about every rule in the book.
  2. JEFF ASHTON’s bias is overwhelming. JEFF ASHTON has violated criminal statutes.
  3. JEFF ASHTON, the Clerk of the Court, and the judges of the Fifth District and Sixth District have impeded, obstructed, and influenced WINDSOR’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Florida courts violate 18 U.S.C. 1519, a criminal statute.

ARGUMENT

  1. THE DEFENDANTS NEVER FILED A LAWFUL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, SO THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES OR THE DEFENDANTS.

 WINDSOR WON BY DEFAULT.

 This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.

  1. The DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned ANSWER on 10/10/2018. [APPENDIX-5021.]

42

 

  1. On 11/09/2020, DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned Answer to the Amended Complaint. [APPENDIX-5022.] This lack of a signature was never corrected.
  2. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) require a signed Answer. Without a signed Answer, there is no Answer. FRCP 1.140 says: “…a defendant must serve an answer….”
  3. WINDSOR WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA……..
  4. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
  5. The Constitutions of the United States and Florida guarantee due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Fla. Const. art. I, § 9.
  6. Florida Constitution “9. Due process No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
  7. “The denial of due process rights, including the opportunity to be heard, to testify, and to present evidence, is fundamental error.” Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th

43

 

DCA 2014). [Wanda I. Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So.3d 916 (Fla. App. 2020).]

  1. There are many violations of Due Process identified in the Statement of the Case (“SOC”), referenced and incorporated here, but the most significant and easiest for this Court to use to grant this APPEAL are APPENDICES-6237-and-5181. APPENDICES-5185-5186-5187-5190 also violate Due Process.
  2. APPENDIX-6237 is a 02/21/2023 Order (“02/21/2023-ORDER”) “revoking Plaintiff’s right to self-representation.” It was entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The 02/21/2023-ORDER indicates WINDSOR, the Plaintiff in 010270, was given 30 days to obtain counsel. The 02/21/2023-ORDER shows clearly that there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. It says: “…having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully informed, finds as follows:” [SOC-¶157.]
  3. APPENDIX-5181 is a 03/25/2021 Order entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard to require Pro-Se Plaintiff WINDSOR’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed by a Member of the Florida Bar. [SOC-¶110.]

44

 

  1. Due Process requires that citizens receive fair notice of what sort of conduct to avoid. The orders of 02/21/2023 and 03/25/2021 violated due process as there was no notice and no hearing. For legal authority, see Paragraphs 147, 129 – 142 of the Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648.
  2. The Sixth Amendment provides the Constitutional right to self-representation. That right should be enjoyed without fear of harassment or judicial prejudice. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
  3. JEFF ASHTON has expressed his disdain for Pro-Se parties. He has harassed WINDSOR and demonstrated extreme judicial prejudice. Consider these statements by JEFF ASHTON:
  4. APPENDIX-6359–Transcript-P.4:8-11;P.29:3-18;P.29: 25;P.30:1-8;P.33:1-10.
  5. On 03/19/2020, NEWLIN was removed as counsel. [APPENDIX-5050]. JEFF ASHTON falsely claimed on 04/05/2021 “this case has not proceeded at all towards trial or resolution.” There were 266 DOCKET entries in that time, including discovery efforts, motions for leave to file an amended complaint, WINDSOR

45

 

affidavits, motions for sanctions against the DEFENDANTS, two frivolous motions to dismiss the case by the DEFENDANTS, filing exhibits, recusal of JUDGE MUNYON, case management conference with JUDGE KEST, motion to recuse JUDGE KEST, JEFF ASHTON became judge, motion for reconsideration of JUDGE KEST orders, BAR MOTION by the DEFENDANTS, Memorandum of Law Regarding Pleadings signed by a Member of the Florida Bar, unlawful order to show cause, Motion to Strike ANSWER AND AMENDED ANSWER, ENTER A DECREE PRO CONFESSO; ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF; AND SCHEDULE THE JURY TRIAL FOR DAMAGES, evidence filing, motions designed to move toward trial, unlawful show cause hearing, and various bogus orders by JEFF ASHTON.

  1. At the hearing on 4/5/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton accused WINDSOR of threatening a member of the judiciary and said it was contemptuous. This is what Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton said was a threat to a member of the judiciary (said under oath):

“352. MR. WINDSOR: “I’m going to make it my mission to expose you and Astrin.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “All right. Mr. Windsor, that is a threat against this Court —

46

 

“MR. ASTRIN: “And myself.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Mr. Windsor, there is a limit. I have let you go on at length, but you have just threatened a member of the judiciary and that is a matter which is contemptuous. No sir, would you like to withdraw that comment or would you like to leave it in the record and face contempt? Because that, sir, will not be tolerated. Threatening a member of the judiciary in a court hearing is not going to be permitted.” [EXHIBIT A – Transcript of Hearing 4/5/2021 – P. 38: 18-25, P. 39:1-6.]”

  1. Exposing corruption is not a threat. It is a First Amendment right. It has been my vocation since 2007. I have websites, including LawlessAmerica.com, and YouTube.com/lawlessamerica. I have produced and directed a documentary film on government and judicial corruption that was presented to every member of Congress on 2/5/2003.” [APPENDIX-6245-Paragraphs-352-353.]
  2. At the hearing on 04/05/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton falsely and maliciously accused WINDSOR of being a liar: [APPENDIX-6245-Paragraphs 357-to-360.]

“357. THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, sir, I want to reiterate what Mr. Astrin has said, that this case cannot go forward, but you’ve got to make a choice. You can either continue the way you have been, which — well, I mean, you can’t, if I grant the motion; you just can’t do anything.

“You cannot get around it by sending e-mails to my judicial assistant. We’re going to block you from communicating that way. But we are more than, more than happy to consider any motion that you file which is signed and approved by a member of the Florida Bar.

47

 

“So the motion is granted. The interim order that I filed will be extended to be a permanent order in this case. Mr. Astrin, if you would like to prepare a proposed order and send it to me, please send it in Word because I’m sure I will be making changes and additions to it.

“Send a copy of that to Mr. Windsor as well so that he will know what you submitted to me. I will submit the order. In the interim, I’m going to prepare a brief order extending my prior order until the new order is written and fully done.

“Mr. Windsor, I hope that you get an attorney involved in this case, because I think there’s a case here that needs to be litigated. But the case needs to be litigated not on personalities.

“So that is the ruling of the Court. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Astrin, I’m looking forward to seeing your proposed order.

“Mr. Windsor, I don’t — I mean, I don’t – if I ask you not to e-mail my JA anymore, will you do it?

“MR. WINDSOR: “Your Honor, I have only e-mailed her when necessary. But she is listed as one of the contacts on the E-portal and I would be happy to remove her from that –

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Mr. Windsor, you e-mailed my JA 214 times since Thursday. Since Thursday.

“MR. WINDSOR: “Absolutely not, Your Honor.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, you’re calling my secretary a liar and I know that she’s telling me the truth about that, so that ain’t going to happen. So I’ll block you from e-mail, again. If you have a lawyer that wants to communicate with us on your behalf, we will be happy to speak with him.” [EXHIBIT 4060 – P.36: 9-25; P.37: 1-25; P. 38: 1-4.]

48

 

“358. I sent three emails to Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s Judicial Assistant from Thursday April 1, 2021 to Monday April 5, 2021. THREE (3) not 214. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is a liar and calling me a liar in open court is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton does not have 214 emails as evidence, this proves he is aa damn liar. This is perjury. This is fraud upon the court.”

“359. At the hearing on 4/5/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton established his bias against me as a senior citizen and a person with a disability after I mentioned difficulty finding something in my records:

“MR. WINDSOR: “Sorry, Your Honor. I do suffer from a cognitive decline that makes it impossible for me to remember if I just took my pills.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, sir, since you’ve raised that, if you suffer from that cognitive decline so that you can — as you said you can’t remember – – you have no short-term memory, how is it that you can represent yourself if you can’t remember whether you took your pills a few minutes ago?” [EXHIBIT 4060 – P. 21: 4- 12.]

“360. Following the hearing on 4/5/2021 at 11:51 a.m., I printed the DOCKET in Case # 2018-010270-O. [EXHIBIT 4057.] It shows all of my evidence was on file at the time of the Hearing, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton refused to consider any of it.”

  1. JEFF ASHTON said and did the following on 01/11/2023 and 02/21/2023 [APPENDIX-6245-Notarized-Affidavit-Paragraphs-382-to-385; 391-to-393]:

 

“382. In January 2023, a hearing was held on 1/11/2023, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton changed it to a hearing on a

49

 

Defendants’ Motion rather than the motion I had scheduled. On 1/24/2023, an Inspection of the Boise Cascade Truck was finally held. I obtained very damaging evidence against the Defendants. On 1/27/2023, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied me access to damning evidence against the Defendants and their Hired Gun Goll. He also introduced his plan to bifurcate to try to screw me more. On 1/30/2023, I filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It is a slam dunk if the judge was honest. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton entered other orders to damage me.

“383. The lowlight in February 2023 came on 2/21/2023 when Jeff Asshton purportedly entered an order on the docket sua sponte that took away my Constitutional rights. Fortunately, I was left with my shirt, pants, shoes, fingers, tongue, and member.

“384. I believe Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton will say and do anything. I never threatened a witness during cross examination resulting in the Court requiring the continuation of the deposition to be taken by a licensed attorney or before a Special Master. The transcript and tape recording show that I was polite and attempting to protect the dishonest witness by encouraging him to have legal counsel because I was preparing to sue him and had already reported him to his superiors with the Florida Highway Patrol. This was explained to Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton in open court, and he said, “I don’t believe for a second anything you said.” I cannot afford the TRANSCRIPT of the 2/10/2023 Hearing, but I do have a tape recording of the hearing that I will use in my lawsuit against Jeff Ashton to prove just how significant he is as a liar. I am also working several angles in an effort to get my eye son the other Ashley Madison emails sent by the Dog.

“385. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton, not known for his honesty a la Ashley Madison, outrageously claimed I threatened to un-necessarily prolong the questioning of the witness at trial. What a liar. I said if Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied a deposition, I would just have to ask the questions at the trial.

 

50

 

That was no threat. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton will prolong the trial if I continue to be denied all forms of discovery, or he will simply disallow everything I need to prove my case.

“391. Then Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton wrote on 2/21/2023 at 12:09:51 p.m.: ‘In response to the hearing set for this date Plaintiff has returned to his abusive filings. He has, in the last four days filed 1,504 documents. Plaintiff has previously been sanction for his abusive conduct in litigation. The right to self-presentation does not the right to threaten, harass and abuse.’

“392. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton made all of this up. I have not threatened, harassed, or abused in legal proceedings. I am writing a book about this case, and it will be brutally honest. I will spread the word far and wide on social media. I plan protests at the Orange County Courthouse, and I will utilize every legal means possible to expose Jeffrey L. Ashton, Lisa T. Munyon, and others.

“393. In the last FOUR days, I had filed four docket entries totaling 429 pages. If 2/17/2023 is added to the equation, it was 1,062 pages. [EXHIBIT 4091.] There was one motion and one affidavit. All the rest was evidence to prove the malicious and false claims of the Defendants. I produced every document with my right hand and index finger from emails in my email program. This was done to provide incontrovertible proof that I did nothing but file evidence that proved the attorney for the Defendants filed a false, malicious motion. Everything I filed was e-filed by me, all on pdfs, so it did not take any precious time from the Clerk’ staff. Besides, when you have evidence that is needed, it is the Clerk’s job to get it handled efficiently. If she doesn’t know how, I am available at $250 per hour to come and straighten out their systems.”

  1. The DEFENDANTS’ motion failed to meet the requirements for the entry of an injunction. The DEFENDANTS do not have standing to seek an injunction, and the attorneys failed to

51

 

state the essential elements. JEFF ASHTON completely ignored this.

  1. There was neither factual nor legal basis for these orders.
  2. The DEFENDANTS’ Motion identified WINDSOR cases in Georgia, Texas, Montana, and elsewhere, but other states are not relevant.
  3. The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172, (1951); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).
  4. JEFF ASHTON is totally biased against WINDSOR as shown in the Statement of Case (“SOC”).
  5. Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The disqualification rules require judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. JEFF ASHTON shows nothing but impropriety. Crosby
  6. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140

 

52

 

So. 459 (1932); State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930).

  1. JEFF ASHTON violated Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
  2. For due process and to secure Constitutional rights judges may not take the law into their own hands. But this is precisely what JEFF ASHTON has done. He has ignored the law, ignored the facts, and claimed laws and rules provide something they do not provide, while abusing and disadvantaging WINDSOR.
  3. For due process to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).) JEFF ASHTON has violated Windsor’s rights by using his power to inflict his bias.
  4. For due process, WINDSOR has the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law. Due process allegedly ensures the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights and guarantee fundamental fairness. JEFF ASHTON violated WINDSOR’s rights by using his power to ignore facts and the law.
  5. JEFF ASHTON has interfered with the process and

53

 

violated rules for the purpose of damaging WINDSOR.

  1. An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. JEFF ASHTON has not been honest. He has lied, committed perjury, committed crimes, and has proven to be supremely dishonest. WINDSOR has not been treated fairly in any way.
  2. Judges have violated the Constitution and laws intentionally. (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).)
  3. In 010270, the fundamental right to have the courts accept WINDSOR’s sworn affidavits as true has been violated. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).)
  4. Judges haven’t shown an ounce of impartiality. (Marshall
  5. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).)

 In 010270, judges have denied the process that is due.

(Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).)

  1. Litigants have the right to equal protection of the law regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, handicaps, or sex. WINDSOR is 74, white, born male and still

54

 

male, Presbyterian, handicapped, and anti-corruption, and he has not received equal protection as a Pro-Se party.

  1. WINDSOR has been denied recourse to the laws.
  2. Judges in Florida have violated WINDSOR’s rights by using their power to inflict their bias.
  3. Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
  4. The Constitution guarantees WINDSOR a fair and impartial judge. Florida judges denied WINDSOR’s guarantee to inflict their extra-judicial bias.

Every person “has a constitutional and statutory right to an impartial and fair judge at all stages of the proceeding.” (Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994). (See Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037; Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted).)

  1. Due process is supposed to guarantee basic fairness and to make people feel that they have been treated fairly.

“justice must give the appearance of justice” (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954).) (Peters v. Kiff, 407, U.S. 493, 502 (1972).)

  1. At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.” For example, in

55

 

1934, the Florida Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

  1. Where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

Substantive due process refers to the rights granted in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. Fifth Amendment due process means substantially the same as Fourteenth Amendment due process.

  1. Judges in Florida have a Constitutional duty to WINDSOR. Florida judges have violated Windsor’s civil and constitutional rights under color of law.

“[t]rial before an ‘unbiased judge’ is essential to due process.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted). (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972).

  1. The due process clauses of both the Florida and the

56

 

United States Constitutions guarantee a party an impartial and disinterested tribunal in civil cases. (Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1613 (1980).)

Partiality in favor of the government may raise a defendant’s due process concerns. In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).

  1. Judges in Florida have effectively denied WINDSOR’s rights of the equal protection under the law in Article VI of the Constitution. Their actions prove that they have exercised their power in this and other actions for their own personal purposes rather than the will of the law.

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990).

  1. The orders issued by judges in Florida suggest the appearance of animosity towards WINDSOR.
  2. These latest purported orders from JEFF ASHTON deny WINDSOR his fundamental Constitutional right of access to the courts, “unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008).) Meaningful access to the courts is a constitutional

57

 

right. (Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc).) [emphasis added.]

  1. In Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc), the Court held that the district court’s injunction was overbroad and violated a prisoner’s right to access courts because it barred him from filing any case in the district court without an attorney, which, given the facts of his case, effectively prevented him from filing any future suit. 792 F.2d at 1070-71. WINDSOR’s financial situation, bankruptcy, and the wrongdoing of JEFF ASHTON prevented him from any involvement in his case. Surely this is unheard of.
  • THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR FLORIDA STATUTE TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO DENY OR REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION.

 This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.

  1. There is no statute or rule to allow a judge to revoke a Plaintiff’s right to represent himself in a civil case.
  2. But on 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered an order (02/21/2023-ORDER) [APPENDIX-6237] without notice of any type.

58

 

  1. JEFF ASHTON cited his authority for the 02/21/2023-ORDER as Lowery v. Kaplan 650 So. 2d 114 (4 DCA 1995) and Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate 613 So, 2d 515 (3DCA 1993). Both of these cases involved criminals and indicate that notice and an opportunity to be heard are requirements. There was no notice or opportunity to be heard in this matter. “THIS MATTER” didn’t “come before the Court.” This is a sua sponte order that is void.
  2. There was no order to show cause. [APPENDIX-6362.] There was no opportunity to be heard.
  3. WINDSOR believes JEFF ASHTON issued the 02/21/2023-ORDER because he knew WINDSOR couldn’t afford an attorney, so this set him up for dismissal of 010270.

 

  1. THE 03/22/2023-ORDER VIOLATES FLORIDA STATUTE 38.10, THE GENERAL FLORIDA DISQUALIFICATION STATUTE.
  2. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
  3. Florida Statute 38.10 authorizes a “party” to seek disqualification of the judge. WINDSOR is the Plaintiff, a party to the action. [APPENDIX-6362–DOCKET,P.1.]

59

 

  1. On 03/20/2023 at 2:48p.m., WINDSOR, filed an Affidavit of Prejudice of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. It was docketed on 03/21/2023. APPENDICES-6244-6245 provide an excellent look at all the wrongdoing of JEFF ASHTON, so it will not be re-typed here.
  2. There is nothing in Florida Statute 38.10 that requires a party to be represented by counsel or that allows a judge to deny a party the right to seek this relief.
  3. WINDSOR’s motions were premised on Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule-2.330, Florida Statutes, and the Florida CJC, all of which require that a judge disqualify himself once a party has established a reasonable fear that he will not obtain a fair hearing. See Florida Rules of Judicial Admin 2.160; Fla. Stat. §§ 38.02, 38.10; Fla. CJC, Canon 3-B (7) and E. 2 I.
  4. JEFF ASHTON violated this law because he proceeded further in the case.

 

  1. THE CASES CITED BY JUDGE JEFF ASHTON DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AS HE DID.

 

60

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
  2. There is no legal authority to allow a judge to revoke a Plaintiff’s right to represent himself in a civil case. But on 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered the 02/21/2023-ORDER without notice of any type. The 02/21/2023-ORDER has no legal authority. [APPENDIX-6237.]
  3. The arbitrary and irrational exercise of power by JEFF ASHTON violated WINDSOR’s due process rights.
  4. The rights of parties cannot be taken without notice and opportunity for hearing. The action by JEFF ASHTON was unreasonable and unjust. WINDSOR did nothing wrong. JEFF ASHTON’s purported complaint was that WINDSOR was filing evidence after being denied an evidentiary hearing after the Defendants filed and submitted to the Court 275 pages of documents. [APPENDIX-6362—DOCKET-02/10/2013.] The attorney for the DEFENDANTS continued to lie about this and everything. As WINDSOR was not allowed to submit evidence at a hearing, then a sworn affidavit authenticating the exhibits was the only other option. JEFF ASHTON chose to ignore the Constitution,

61

 

due process, statutes, rules, and codes because his sole purpose was to damage WINDSOR.

  1. THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY WINDSOR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
  2. American courts have secured the right to represent oneself in court since the beginning of the nation. The Judiciary Act of 1789 recognized the right to personally present oneself in court without a lawyer. In 1948, this right was reaffirmed under U.S.C. § 1654 which reads: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
  3. The United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and a massive amount of case law provide WINDSOR has the right to represent himself in court.
  4. In Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley wrote: “It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the

 

62

 

Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”

  1. See also Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603.
    1. The Florida Supreme Court says this: “A person should not be forced to have an attorney represent his legal interests if he does not consent to such representation. All citizens in our state are also guaranteed access to our courts by Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968).” [Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978).] [emphasis added.]
  2. Several courts have written: “The right to represent oneself in a civil proceeding is on a scale of importance equal to the right of trial by jury.”
  3. Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association reaffirm this right.
  4. S. Supreme Court Cases reaffirming the right to self-representation include: Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824); Haines v. Kerner (1972); Faretta v. California (1975); Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905; Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

 

63

 

U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233; Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938); Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882); Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894); Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893); Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885); Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332. Other relevant federal opinions include Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996); Cannon v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694; Geiler v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286; and Gonzalez v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374;

VII. THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OTHER FILINGS BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNSIGNED AND MUST BE DISREGARDED AND CONSIDERED VOID.

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”

64

 

  1. The purported motions of the DEFENDANTS are unsigned. They must be disregarded and stricken. [APPENDIX-6410.]
  2. A signature is not optional. The signature is much more than a person’s name. Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration dictates the requirement:

“Every document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record….

  1. Therefore, there is no proof that any attorney read the motions, and there is no certification that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support the motions.
  2. There are many cases where pleadings were declared nullities because they were not properly signed.

 

See Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding a notice of appeal signed by a non-attorney corporate officer a nullity); Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (reversing summary judgment in favor of corporate housing authority, holding its complaint signed and filed by a non-attorney void); Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966) (affirming trial court’s striking of plaintiff corporation’s complaint holding the complaint a nullity where it was filed and signed by the corporation’s non-attorney president).

65

 

  1. But in this case, there are no signatures at all except on one affidavit about legal fees!
  2. This Court must strike the unsigned documents.
  3. None of the exhibits have been authenticated, so all must be disregarded.

 

VIII. THIS CASE INVOLVES VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT.

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed by the “de novo” standard of review.
  2. Void Orders and Void Judgments have no legal force or effect. For legal authority, see Paragraphs 129–142 of the Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648. [APPENDIX-6360.]
  3. THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY WINDSOR THE RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON.

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed by the “de novo” standard of review.
  2. The law is clear that a PARTY has that right. JEFF ASHTON had no authority to remove Plaintiff WINDSOR as a PARTY and did not.

66

 

  1. JEFF ASHTON has violated Windsor’s Constitutional rights. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172, (1951); Marshall Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).

 Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930).

  1. JEFF ASHTON has lied and demeaned Windsor in open court hearings. WINDSOR has tape recordings of JEFF ASHTON if this Court would like to hear them. They prove his lies in his court orders.
  2. An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. JEFF ASHTON has not been honest. He has violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the CJC.

 

67

 

  1. THE ACTIONS OF JEFF ASHTON AND THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. 1519.

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
  2. The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Florida courts violate 18 U.S.C. 1519:

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

  1. JEFF ASHTON and the Clerk of the Court have made false entries in the Record. Filings have disappeared from the DOCKET.
  2. JEFF ASHTON, the Clerk of the Court, and the judges of the Fifth District and Sixth District have impeded, obstructed, and influenced WINDSOR’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. WINDSOR’s documented bankruptcy plan has been to represent himself Pro-Se

68

 

in 010270 and get a jury award more than sufficient to pay all creditors in full.

  1. By claiming WINDSOR has to pay attorneys when he has no money or access to money due to bankruptcy and the control of all of his assets by the Trustee, these people have violated 18 U.S.C. 1519.
  2. By denying WINDSOR’s legal rights and dismissing the case because he can’t pay an attorney, JEFF ASHTON has unlawfully blocked WINDSOR’s reorganization plan which is a sure winner. If a man named Leroy gets $990,000 from being rear-ended at a stop light, WINDSOR should receive millions for permanent disability from being sent airborne by an 18-wheeler at 70 miles per hour. [APPENDIX-6361.]
  3. JEFF ASHTON AND THE CLERK OF COURT DESTROYED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED FLORIDA STATUTE 839.13.

 

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”

“…if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off,

 

69

 

discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.”

  1. See SOC ¶¶142-and-161.
  2. The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Clerk of the Court violated Florida Statute 839.13.

 

XII. THERE ARE NO FACTUAL FINDINGS TO SUPPORT DISMISSAL.

 

  1. This is a fact issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
  2. As the Statement of Case and APPENDIX show, there are no factual findings. Judges are not authorized to make up facts.

 

XIII. JEFF ASHTON COMMITTED MANY VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, RULES, AND CODES

  1. This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
  2. There were so many errors in the process and procedures that resulted in an “unfavorable” decision that there is

 

70

 

too much to repeat. All of the pages above are referenced and incorporated here.

  1. An injunction may not be issued to block a legal act. It is legal for WINDSOR to represent himself. It is legal for a person in bankruptcy to represent himself when authorized by the federal bankruptcy court.
  2. The action of JEFF ASHTON is an injunction, and an injunction may not be issued to block a legal act.
  3. The Court abused its discretion by denying WINDSOR the ability to obtain needed discovery. WINDSOR was denied due process. The Judge repeatedly denied discovery requests that were essential in support of WINDSOR’s case.
  4. WINDSOR was denied the opportunity to depose anyone from BOISE. WINDSOR was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Trooper Linzmeyer.
  5. The Court allowed the DEFENDANTS to abuse discovery at every turn.
  6. The abuse of the legal system and WINDSOR in this case is staggering. There are many, many cases of perjury by the DEFENDANTS and JEFF ASHTON. Attorneys for the

71

 

DEFENDANTS have committed a significant number of violations of rules, ethics and the law. THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO SO BY JUDGE ASHTON! They have lied and cheated, and they have been rewarded as a result, while punishing WINDSOR day-in and day-out.

  1. The DEFENDANTS deceived the Court Record with complete, total fabrications. Their attorneys have lied repeatedly apparently knowing that they could get away with it.
  2. This case has False pleadings, altered documents, perjury galore, destruction of evidence, and plain old corruption.
  3. THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO REQUIRE WINDSOR TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR HAVE HIS CASE DISMISSED, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS IN CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY.

 

  1. JEFF ASHTON had no legal basis to require a bankrupt Plaintiff to hire an attorney. The Trustee controls all assets, and WINDSOR’s sole source of income was Social Security Retirement that was insufficient to over all of his mandatory bills. WINDSOR’s written Plan was to represent himself Pro-Se so there would be no expense to the Estate. The Trustee was unwilling to act as WINDSOR’s attorney or signer.

72

 

  1. JEFF ASHTON didn’t care. He had one and only one goal: Bury WINDSOR and save the DEFENDANTS millions of dollars.

 

CONCLUSION

 

For all the reasons stated above, WINDSOR respectfully urges the Court to enter an Order granting this APPEAL; vacate all orders of dismissal; vacate all Orders of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton; remove Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton from 010270; grant WINDSOR’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and instruct the new judge to proceed in a manner consistent with this Court’s decision.

WINDSOR seeks action by this Court in compliance with 18 U.S.C. 4.

WINDSOR seeks an order providing any other relief that this Court feels is proper.

This 25th day of August 2023,

 

/s/ William M. Windsor

 

William M. Windsor

 

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, SD 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

 

xi

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by Electronic Mail or United States Postal Service:

 

Matthew J. Conigliaro

 

Carlton Fields, P.A.

4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33607

  • 229-4254, mconigliaro@carltonfields.com, devans@carltonfields.com, tpaecf@cfdom.net

 

Blake Mansker, Scott Warburton

 

Adams | Coogler, P.A.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1600

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2329

Telephone: 561-478-4500 — Fax: 561-478-7847

bmansker@adamscoogler.com, rurban@adamscoogler.com,

 

swarburton@adamscoogler.com, and ajohnson@adamscoogler.com

 

Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton, Keitra Davis

 

Orange County Courthouse

425 N Orange, Courtroom 18-C, Orlando, FL 32801

407-836-2008, 37orange@ninthcircuit.org, ctjakd3@ocnjcc.org,

Barry5515@gmail.com

 

Roberta Walton Johnson

 

General Counsel for Clerk of the Circuit Court

Orange County Florida, Orange County Clerk of Courts, PO Box

4994, 425 N. Orange Ave, Suite 2110 Orlando, FL 32802, 407-836-6324, ADM-ContactAdminDiv@mvoraneeclerk.com, roberta.waltonjohnson@nyorangeclerk.com

 

 

This 25th day of August 2023,

 

 

/s/ William M. Windsor

 

William M. Windsor

 

xii

 

 

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 

I hereby certify that I have complied with Rule 9.210(a)(2)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Brief contains 12,966 words.

 

The cover sheet, the tables of contents and citations, the certificates of service and compliance, and the signature block for the brief’s author shall be excluded from the word count and page limits in subdivisions (a)(2)(A)–(a)(2)(D). For briefs on jurisdiction, the statement of the issues also shall be excluded from the page limit in subdivision (a)(2)(A). All pages not excluded from the computation shall be consecutively numbered.

 

This 25th day of August 2023,

 

 

/s/ William M. Windsor

 

William M. Windsor

 

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

 

xiii

 

VERIFICATION

 

My name is William M. Windsor. My date of birth is October 2, My address is 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108, Lincoln County, USA.

 

Pursuant to Florida Statute 92.525, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

 

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

 

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com