Author: William M. Windsor

Violation of Constitutional Rights

 

As I have said in other articles, our Constitutional rights have become a myth. 

When it comes to federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, you have no rights.  They have them all.

Consider this motion seeking relief from violation of my Constitutional rights.  This was filed September 28, 2009.

Review this, and then go to the bottom of the page to see what happened.

United States District Court — Northern District of Georgia — Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE

MAID OF THE MIST CORPORATION and MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiffs v. ALCATRAZ MEDIA, LLC, ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC. and  WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Defendants.

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Comes Now Defendant William M. Windsor (“Windsor”), and files this EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (“Motion for Relief”).  Windsor shows the Court as follows:

1.               Windso’s Constitutional rights have been violated and abused by this Court.  Relief is desperately needed.  [Dec #83 ¶11.]

2.               Due process of law is one of the most deeply rooted principles in American jurisprudence, a legal concept that ensures the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process places limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.  [Dec #83 ¶12.]

3. In this civil action, the government has not respected Windsor’s legal rights.  The government has all but ignored Windsor’s rights.  This is addressed in detail below, but page limits do not permit full and complete explanation of all that this Court has done.  A hearing is needed. [Dec #83 ¶13.]

4.               The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments say that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”  The central promise is that all levels of government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures. [Dec #83 ¶14.]

5. In this civil action, Windsor has been deprived of most rights except the right to pay money and make filings with the District Court and the 11th Circuit.  Windsor has incurred over a million dollars in legal fees and court costs and has never been granted a hearing.  This Court violated the law regarding preliminary injunctions and summary judgments, ignored O.C.G.A. 43-4B, ignored anti-trust laws, ignored the Plaintiffs’ perjury and subornation of perjury of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, and much more. [Dec #83 ¶15.]

6.               Due process requires that the government respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law.  Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.  In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth the rationale for the establishment of government in a society: to secure the fundamental, inherent, and preexisting rights of the people.  [Dec #83 ¶16.]

7.               In this civil action, this Court has shown absolutely no respect for Windsor’s legal rights.  This Court has ignored the law and the facts.  Windsor has been denied the most fundamental right to not have his legal rights stolen by a dishonest judge. [Dec #83 ¶17.]

8.               Given the enormous value placed on people’s lives and liberty and given recognition of the enormous power of the government, our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that as few innocent people as possible punished, even if that meant lots of guilty people went unpunished.  [Dec #83 ¶18.]

9.               In this civil action, Judge Evans allowed the guilty Plaintiffs to prevail, and the innocent Defendants were punished to the tune of a million dollars and an injunction.   Windsor has absolutely undeniable proof, but Judge Evans has ignored it, has pretended it doesn’t exist, and has not even given Windsor a hearing.  Judge Evans’ actions and inactions are a disgrace to the judicial system.  Windsor believes Judge Evans has done this to cover up her criminal acts. [Dec #83 ¶19.]

10.            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.  [Dec #83 ¶20.]

11.             In this civil action, this Court has ignored the law and the rules.  Judge Evans completely ignored the law and the regulations that govern preliminary injunctions.  Judge Evans completely ignored the universal principles that govern summary judgments.  Judge Evans hasn’t taken a single action in this case since May 20, 2009.  That was 161 days ago.  Motions that are open include Docket #’s 387, 393, 395, 396, 398, 400, 402, 404, 406, 408, 410, 412, 414, 456, 458, 466, 468, 470, 472, 474, 486, 488, 490, 493, 511, 513, 515, 528, and 547.  Nine motions were submitted to Judge Evans by the clerk on June 23, 2009; six were submitted on August 4, 2009; six were submitted on August 21, 2009; and five were submitted on September 8, 2009, but Judge Evans has failed to take any action.   This is a complete and total failure of Judge Evans to do the most basic things required of a judge. [Dec #83 ¶21.]

12.            At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.”  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, it includes an individual’s right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, 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).)  [Dec #83 ¶22.]

13.           In this civil action, Windsor has been denied the right to be heard, and the judge has been totally biased against the Defendants.  There was only one preliminary injunction hearing, and the Defendants presented only enough evidence to defeat the arguments presented by the Plaintiffs.  Windsor has been denied hearings repeatedly, and now this Court doesn’t even pretend to review motions.  There has been no fundamental fairness. [Dec #83 ¶23.]

14.            Courts have viewed the Due Process Clause, and sometimes other clauses of the Constitution, as embracing those fundamental rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”  (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).)  [Dec #83 ¶24.]

15.             In this civil action, the fundamental right to have the Court accept Windsor’s sworn affidavits as true has been violated.  Windsor’s sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury before a notary have been ignored.  This is made even worse because Windsor’s affidavits have not been controverted in any manner. [Dec #83 ¶25.]

16.            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).)  [Dec #83 ¶26.]

17. In this civil action, Judge Evans and the Eleventh Circuit have subjected Windsor to arbitrary actions unrestrained by the concepts of rights and justice.  The Plaintiffs were given partial treatment.  Denying the Defendants access to important records, evidence, and witnesses, as Judge Evans did, is a violation of Equal Protection. [Dec #83 ¶27.]

18.            Judges are required to be impartial.  [Dec #83 ¶28.]

Just as in criminal and quasi-criminal cases, (Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)), an impartial decision maker” is an ”essential” right in civil proceedings as well.  (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970).)

19.           In this civil action, Judge Evans has demonstrated pervasive bias against the Defendants.  Judge Evans hasn’t shown an ounce of impartiality.  She has never ruled in favor of the Defendants on any contested motion out of 40+ motions.  The record shows that Judge Evans was against the Defendants from the minute she became involved.  Judge Evans established a fixed view about substantive pending trial matters.  Judge Evans issued a Temporary Restraining Order and required a bond that was less than 1.5% of the amount underestimated by the Defendants.  The bond was $5,000, and the loss by the Defendants has been approximately $1,000,000.  This demonstrates extrajudicial bias.  Judge Evans spoke at the Preliminary Injunction with a clearly fixed view about substantive pending trial matters, so this must raise concerns about the “appearance of impropriety,” a standard that must be safeguarded.  Judge Evans indicated to Windsor that she maintained a position throughout this proceeding that the Defendants were wrong and that their case did not matter.  Judge Evans called it a “simple case” in complete disregard for the facts, the law, and the counterclaim of Alcatraz.  Judge Evans treated the Defendants in a hostile manner. Judge Evans ignored Windsor’s claims of over 400 counts of perjury, Rule 11 violations, and subornation of perjury.  Judge Evans issued orders and the judgment based upon perjured testimony.  There can be little proof of extrajudicial bias that can be any stronger than to demonstrate that Judge Evans welcomed the opportunity to have this civil action perverted by perjury.  Maid has not attempted to dispute the perjury with a single solitary affidavit.   This is because Maid cannot dispute the facts. This pervasive bias continues as was shown on May 22, 2009 in Evans Docket #390 — an order from Judge Evans wherein she falsely claims “the issues of law and fact in this case ultimately were not difficult.”  Everything that Judge Evans has done has shown bias, and her failure to act on anything in this case for close to six months certainly is an exclamation point on the bias! [Dec #83 ¶29.]

20.            Judges are required to be neutral.  [Dec #83 ¶30.]

The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. . . . At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness . . . by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him.”  (Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).)

21.            In this civil action, there was no neutrality.  Judge Evans and the 11th Circuit have deprived Windsor of his interests and rights. [Dec #83 ¶31.]

22.            The rights of confrontation and cross-examination are basic. [Dec #83 ¶32.]

Where the ”evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealously,” the individual’s right to show that it is untrue depends on the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. ”This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, . . . but also in all types of cases where administrative . . . actions were under scrutiny.”  (Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496 -97 (1959).)

23.            In this civil action, Windsor has reported massive perjury, yet he has been denied the rights to examine the perjurors. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses is a vital right of due process. If the liars show up for a hearing, Windsor will win.  The judge will see within 10 minutes that this is a case that must be fixed. [Dec #83 ¶33.]

24.            Due process of law is violated when the government vindictively attempts to penalize a person for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.  [United States v. Conkins, 9 F.3d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir. 1993).]  [Dec #83 ¶34.]

25. In this civil action, the government has vindictively penalized Windsor.  It seems to Windsor that the Northern District of Georgia and the 11th Circuit are corrupt.  These are strong words, but Windsor believes he can present information that a reasonable person will find to be evidence of corruption. [Dec #83 ¶35.]

26.            In his well-regarded article, “Some Kind of Hearing,” Judge Henry Friendly says that an important right of due process is “a decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.”  [Dec #83 ¶36.]

27.            In this civil action, the decisions have not been based upon the evidence presented.  Judge Evans routinely ignored the facts and the law and even invented her own facts.  Judge Evans manufactured false facts upon which she based orders.  The record proves this. [Dec #83 ¶37.]

28.            Due process is “an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.”  A commitment to legality is at the heart of all advanced legal systems.  The due process clause promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty, or property, government must follow fair procedures. It is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be. Citizens are also entitled to have the government offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” is unconstitutional.  [Dec #83 ¶38.]

29. In this civil action, Judge Evans and the 11th Circuit have denied the process that is due.  The government’s actions are unconstitutional. [Dec #83 ¶39.]

30.            The rights at issue are fundamental rights, and the government is prohibited from infringing that right unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The concept of a “compelling interest” has never been well defined, but generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.  [Dec #83 ¶40.]

31.            In this civil action, Judge Evans has no supportable reason for infringing on Windsor’s fundamental rights. The Defendants were denied the most basic discovery — never even given the names and contact information for employee witnesses.  Judge Evans denied the ability of the Defendants to take deposition testimony of any of the people directly involved with customers or any customers.  Judge Evans denied the Defendants the time needed to obtain the depositions of Canadian employees of Maid who were important to Defendants’ case.   Judge Evans repeatedly denied discovery requests that were essential to Defendants’ defense and in support of Defendants’case.  Discovery Abuse is detailed in Exhibit 16 to the Second Declaration of William M. Windsor (“Dec #2″) [Evans Docket #361], incorporated herein as if attached hereto.  Judge Evans denied Windsor, a pro se party, the ability to conduct a 30(b)(6) examination of Maid Corporation.  [Evans Docket # 174, P59: 18-21.] [Dec #83 ¶41.]

32.            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).)  [Dec #83 ¶42.]

33.            In this civil action, the practices of Judge Evans have been totally offensive. [Dec #83 ¶43.]

34.            You have the right to subpoena witnesses and any documents or other evidence that may support your position or contradict evidence presented against you.  [Dec #83 ¶44.]

35. In this civil action, Judge Evans denied Windsor the ability to subpoena witnesses and obtain documents. [Dec #83 ¶45.]

36.            You have the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law precedent.  [Dec #83 ¶46.]

37. In this civil action, statutes have been violated and overwhelming case law has been ignored. [Dec #83 ¶47.]

38.            You have the right to equal protection of the law regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, handicaps, or sex.  [Dec #83 ¶48.]

39. In this civil action, Windsor is handicapped and a minority, and he has not received equal protection as a pro se party. [Dec #83 ¶49.]

40.            You have the right to a remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs that you may receive in your person, property, or character.  [Dec #83 ¶50.]

41.            In this civil action, Windsor has been denied recourse.  Windsor spent a year assembling the proof so this Court would reopen the case.  The Court improperly denied the recourse. [Dec #83 ¶51.]

42.            You 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.  [Dec #83 ¶52.]

43. In this civil action, this Court has denied justice, has not provided prompt response to motions, and has not conformed with the laws. [Dec #83 ¶53.]

44.            There is supposed to be a truth finding process:  [Dec #83 ¶54.]

Due process tolerates variances in form “appropriate to the nature of the case” —  (Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).) ”[P]rocedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases.” (Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976).)  The rules ”minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations” by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. (Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).) At times, the Court has also stressed the dignitary importance of procedural rights, the worth of being able to defend one’s interests even if one cannot change the result.  (Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 -67 (1978); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). )

45. In this civil action, there was an error in the truth-finding process.  Windsor doesn’t ask much.  He has prepared all the proof, and it is filed with the Court.  All he has asked from the beginning is an evidentiary hearing, and he has promised that the result will be that the orders and judgment in this civil action will be set aside.  Judge Evans and the Eleventh Circuit have totally ignored Windsor. [Dec #83 ¶55.]

46.            The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury, which protects the right of the accused to be judged by ordinary people in the community rather than by the judge presiding over the case.  [Dec #83 ¶56.]

47. In this civil action, the Defendants were denied a trial by jury.  The judge presided over the case and made massive mistakes that can be proven in a hearing.  This Court has held only one evidentiary hearing in four years.  This Court has ignored and/or denied repeated requests for hearings.  There are urgent needs for an evidentiary hearing. [Dec #83 ¶57.]

48.            The only evidentiary hearing held in this case was a Preliminary Injunction Hearing on April 11, 2006.  This was before any depositions had been taken, and only a tiny document production had been provided by Maid.  Christopher Glynn of Maid had already lied a hundred times, but the Defendants had not had an opportunity to gather evidence to prove those lies. [Dec #83 ¶58.]

49.            The Defendants were denied due process that led to a summary judgment.  Windsor has now filed all of the proof needed to establish that an honest judge should reopen the case, Judge Evans obviously hasn’t read the evidence, and she has refused to schedule a hearing or a conference.  If Judge Evans continues to deny a hearing, it will deny Windsor the opportunity that he must be given to regain his property.  Failure to hold a hearing will be an incredible violation of Windsor’s Constitutional rights.  It is an elementary right.  It is fair play.  The judge is supposed to respect the elementary rights of litigants.  [Dec #83 ¶59.]

50.            The Supreme Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of his property [418 U.S. 539, 558]   interests.  (Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring):  [Dec #83 ¶60.]

“Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 681. “It is ingrained in our national traditions and is designed to maintain them.  In a variety of situations the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution.” [Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 162]   One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time, to be heard . . . .” The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 100 -101. “[B]y ‘due process’ is meant one which, following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case, and just to the parties to be affected.  It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by the law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and 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.)  â€œBefore its property can be taken under the edict of an administrative officer the appellant is entitled to a fair hearing upon the fundamental facts.”  (Southern R. Co. v. Virginia, 290 U.S. 190, 199.) “Whether acting through its judiciary or through its legislature, a State may not deprive a person of all existing remedies for the enforcement of a right, which the State has no power to destroy, unless there is, or was, afforded to him some real opportunity to protect it.”  (Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, supra, 281 U.S. at 682.)

“The requirement of ‘due process’ is not a fair-weather or timid assurance. It must be respected in periods of calm and in times of trouble; it protects aliens as well as citizens. But “due process,” unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances. Expressing as it does in its ultimate analysis respect enforced by law for that feeling of just treatment which has been evolved through centuries of Anglo-American constitutional history and civilization, “due process” cannot be imprisoned within the treacherous limits of any formula. Representing a profound attitude of fairness between man and man, and more particularly between the individual and government, “due process” is compounded of history, [Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 163]   reason, the past course of decisions, and stout confidence in the strength of the democratic faith which we profess. Due process is not a mechanical instrument. It is not a yardstick. It is a process. It is a delicate process of adjustment inescapably involving the exercise of judgment by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the unfolding of the process.

“This Court is not alone in recognizing that the right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society. Regard for this principle has guided Congress and the Executive. Congress has often entrusted, as it may, protection of interests which it has created to administrative agencies rather than to the courts. But rarely has it authorized such agencies to act without those essential safeguards for fair judgment which in the course of centuries have come to be associated with due process.  (See Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297; Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576 , 577; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Labor Board, 261 U.S. 72 . 15 And when Congress [Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 169]   has given an administrative agency discretion to determine its own procedure, the agency has rarely chosen to dispose of the rights of individuals without a hearing, however informal. [Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 170]

“The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights.

An opportunity to be heard may not seem vital when an issue relates only to technical questions susceptible [Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171]   of demonstrable proof on which evidence is not likely to be overlooked and argument on the meaning and worth of conflicting and cloudy data not apt to be helpful. But in other situations an admonition of Mr. Justice Holmes becomes relevant. “One has to remember that when one’s interest is keenly excited evidence gathers from all sides around the magnetic point . . . .” (Mr. Justice Holmes made this remark in a letter to Mr. Arthur Garfield Hays in 1928.) It should be particularly heeded at times of agitation and anxiety, when fear and suspicion impregnate the air we breathe. Compare Brown, The French Revolution in English History. “The plea that evidence of guilt must be secret is abhorrent to free men, because it provides a cloak for the malevolent, the misinformed, the meddlesome, and the corrupt to play the role of informer undetected and uncorrected.”  (United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 551 (dissenting).)  Appearances in the dark are apt to look different in the light of day.

“Man being what he is cannot safely be trusted with complete immunity from outward responsibility in depriving others of their rights. At least such is the conviction underlying our Bill of Rights. That a conclusion satisfies one’s private conscience does not attest its reliability. The validity and moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was reached. Secrecy is not congenial to truth-seeking and self-righteousness gives too slender an assurance of rightness. No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss [Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172]   notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. Nor has a better way been found for generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done. (“In a government like ours, entirely popular, care should be taken in every part of the system, not only to do right, but to satisfy the community that right is done.”  (The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, 163.)” [emphasis added]

“Due process forbids condemnation without a hearing.”  (Pettit v. Penn, LaApp., 180 So.2d 66, 69.)  The notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard ”must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”  (Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).)  ”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).)  “While written presentations may be acceptable in some situations, in others the issue of veracity may necessitate oral presentation or oral examination of witnesses, or the petitioner may not have the ability to present his case in writing.”  (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 266 -67 (1970); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 343 -45 (1976). See also FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265, 275 -77 (1949).)  [Dec #83 ¶10.]

51.            In this civil action, this Court has arbitrarily ignored numerous requests for an evidentiary hearing.  The opportunity to be heard is the most basic of rights, and this Court has denied that right.  This Court has violated Windsor’s First Amendment rights. [Dec #83 ¶61.]

52.            The term due process refers to the requirement that the actions of government be conducted according to the rule of law.  No government can be above the law.  Both the lessons of history and the natural rights philosophy declare that each person possesses rights to life, liberty, and property.  Government cannot interfere with these rights except according to established procedures of law.  The principle of due process of law is one of the most important protections against arbitrary rule.  The Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  The Fifth Amendment acts as a limitation upon the exercise of judicial power — judges may not sit as adjudicators in cases in which they have an interest.  [Dec #83 ¶62.]

53.            In this civil action, Windsor has filed a professional misconduct complaint against Judge Evans, and he has filed a lawsuit against Judge Evans.  This means Judge Evans has more than an interest in this matter, and she is violating the Fifth Amendment by remaining involved. [Dec #83 ¶63.]

54.            An inherent right is the honesty of the judge.  [Dec #83 ¶64.]

55.            In this civil action, Judge Evans has committed perjury.  Judge Evans made over 200 statements in the Preliminary Injunction Order and Summary Judgment Order that were false or that Windsor believes to be false.  Proof of most of the false statements in the orders has been documented in Evans Docket #362 and 377 with citations to Maid’s witnesses proving that many statements are false.  These were material false statements made under the Judge’s oath of office in a federal proceeding.  Judge Evans knew statements that she made were false because she claimed statements were evidence before the Court, and that was clearly not true.  Furthermore, Judge Evans was on notice that the Summary Judgment Order statements were false because Windsor informed her at a hearing on February 2, 2007.  [Evans Docket #174, P 23: 24-25, P 24: 1-7, P 34: 4-7, P 44: 6-8.] [Dec #83 ¶65.]

56.            Inherent in the expectation of due process is that the judge will abide by the rules.  [Dec #83 ¶66.]

57. In this civil action, Judge Evans has violated many canons of the Code of Judicial Procedure as well as rules in the State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct.  Failing to report the dishonesty of Plaintiffs’ attorneys is a clear violation of the ministerial duties of Judge Evans pursuant to Canon 3B(3) of the Judicial Code of Conduct that states: “A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer.”  Detailed background facts regarding the professional misconduct of Judge Evans are provided in Dec #23 — Evans Docket #406; this details what Judge Evans did throughout this case. Other violations are detailed in Dec #25 (Evans Docket #462).  Docket 406 and 462 are referenced herein and made a part hereof as if attached hereto. All of this should cause Judge Evans to be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.  All of this should cause this Court to set aside the orders and judgments. [Dec #83 ¶67.]

58.            Inherent in due process is the expectation that the judge will not violate criminal statutes.  [Dec #83 ¶68.]

59.            In this civil action, Judge Evans has committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Judge Evans withheld material evidence that should have been provided to the Defendants.  Judge Evans received two contracts for an in camera inspection in February 2007.  Judge Evans did not respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Compel these contracts until well after discovery had closed.  Judge Evans claimed the contracts were not relevant to the case, but that was false.  Maid claimed these documents were “irrelevant, immaterial, ill-defined, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” but that was false.  The Defendants have now obtained the contracts through a FOI request, so Windsor knows that the contracts contained extremely important information.  These documents are referenced in Evans Docket #168, and the production requirement is noted in Evans Docket # 174 – Hearing of February 2, 2007, P 61-62.  The importance of these documents is addressed in the First Declaration of William M. Windsor (Dec #1, ¶¶ 15-32 and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto — Docket #361.) Dockets 168, 174, and 361 are referenced and incorporated herein as if attached hereto. [Dec #83 ¶69.]

60.            This Court has violated Windsor’s Fourth Amendment rights.  [Dec #83 ¶70.]

The Fourth Amendment is a classic repository of constitutional rights. It serves as a bulwark, protecting individual liberty from arbitrary invasions by state actors. See Wolf v. People of State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27–28, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 1361, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949), overruled on other grounds by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). To that end, the proscriptions found in the Fourth Amendment impose a benchmark of reasonableness upon the exercise of governmental discretion.  (Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed. 2d 660 (1979); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1820, 56 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1978).)

61.            In this civil action, the government has been totally unreasonable.  Judge Evans has violated the Fourth Amendment. [Dec #83 ¶71.]

62.            Judgments and orders rendered in violation of due process are void. [Dec #83 ¶72.]

“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void.”  (World Wide Volkswagen v Woodsen, 444 US 286, 291 (1980); National Bank v Wiley, 195 US 257 (1904); Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1878).)

63.            In this civil action, the summary judgment and the final judgment should be voided.  Clearly the one and only order from Judge Evans in 2009 must be considered void as the violations of due process are horrendous. [Dec #83 ¶73.]

64.            Judge Evans has repeatedly violated the Constitutional rights of Windsor.  Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A hereto is a list.  This Court must prove that each listed violation is not a violation of Constitutional rights.  If this Court cannot do so, Windsor’s rights have been violated and the orders and judgments are void.  [Dec #83 ¶74.]

65.            The entire dockets in Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE, No.1:09-CV-02027-WSD, and 1:09-CV-01543-WSD are referenced and incorporated herein as if attached hereto.  The Eighty-Third Declaration of William M. Windsor (“Dec #83″) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.  This Court is asked to read Exhibit A because it includes a lot of information that is not included in this Motion.  [Dec #83 ¶75.]

66.            To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation “of the most basic sort.” (Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363.) The Defendants were wrongly punished for exercising a protected statutory right due to O.C.G.A. 43-4B, Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Robinson-Patman Act.

WHEREFORE, having emphasized why a hearing needs to be held, Defendant Windsor respectfully requests as follows:

(1)    that the presiding judge of this administrative judicial district assign another judge to this case and/or refer this Motion to the presiding judge of this administrative district for a hearing;

(2)    that the Court grant the Motion for Relief under the Constitution and its Amendments and/or the Court’s Inherent Powers and/or under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4);

(3)    that the Court grant an evidentiary hearing to consider if the orders and judgment should be set aside;

(4)    that the Court strike all orders and judgments in this case;  and

(5)    that the Court grant such other and further relief to Windsor as justice requires in association with this Motion.

Respectfully submitted, this 28th day of September 2009.

William M. Windsor

 

And here was Judge Orinda D. Evans’ ruling on December 22, 2009:

“Windsor has also filed a motion to vacate the orders and judgment in this case pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) [Doc . 567] and a motion to reopen the case and grant relief from alleged violations of his constitutional rights, based on Rule 60(b)(4) [Doc . 571].  The Court previously denied Windsor’s motion to reopen the case under Rule 60 (b) and will not revisit that ruling . The case remains closed, and Windsor’s requested relief is unavailable.  Those motions for relief dependent on reopening the case pursuant to Rule 60(b) [Doc . 567 & 571] are DISMISSED AS MOOT.”

So, Judge Evans ruled that my Constitutional rights were a,moot issue.  Boy was she right, but WRONG!

 

So, the deciison was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

My appeal was dismissed, and my Constitutional rights were not even addressed!

The panel issued an opinion that contains significantly false information that the panel knew or should have known to be false.  The July 23, 2010 Order contains 20 sentences, and only sentences 16 to 19 address one of my 20 points of error.  Those sentences are false.  I have never filed anything unsubstantiated; has never filed duplicative pleadings; has not filed repetitive pleadings; has never made unfounded accusations; and the fact that a case was “closed” has no importance in actions to reopen the case and seek justice.

Corruption in Atlanta’s Federal Courts

What’s the difference between a masked, gun-toting criminal and a federal judge in Atlanta?

The judges don’t wear masks.

Atlanta’s federal courts are filled with corruption.  I always knew there were problems, but I thought it was just dishonest lawyers.  I never dreamed that federal judges are corrupt and routinely commit crimes because they have the power to do anything they want.

I have accused nine federal judges in Atlanta of corruption or dishonesty.  From my personal experience, these judges ignore the law, ignore the facts, and commit criminal acts while hiding behind their judicial robes and the “judicial immunity” that the judges have given themselves over the years.

 

Continue reading Corruption in Atlanta’s Federal Courts

Second Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Orinda D. Evans

evans-orinda-d-article-article-201410271552-200w

I have filed two judicial misconduct complaints against Judge Orinda D. Evans. 

Judge Evans has a reputation for twisting the law and the facts to decide how she wants to decide without regard for the law or what’s right.

She did this and a lot more in my case.  She committed perjury and obstruction of justice — committed many criminal acts.  She did it knowingly because she felt she could get away with it.  She has gotten away with it for as long as 30 years as a federal judge.

The first complaint was ignored, and the second one probably will be as well.

I have stated under oath that Judge Orinda D. Evans is as dishonest and corrupt as they come.

Continue reading Second Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Orinda D. Evans

Dishonest Federal Judge: William S. Duffey

Corrupt Judge

Judge William S. Duffey is horribly corrupt.

Judge Duffey called me “scurrilous and irresponsible” because I sued his friend, Judge Orinda D. Evans.

When my lawsuit was assigned to his court, he pretended he could be impartial. 

I didn’t believe a word he said because his actions proved otherwise.

Continue reading Dishonest Federal Judge: William S. Duffey

About William M. Windsor

 windsor-bill-2014-09-05-2669-cropped-200w

I began my career as a junior at Texas Tech University.  I became involved in the T-shirt business in college, and after several years as a retailer, wholesaler, and manufacturer, I launched the trade magazine and trade show for the industry.  I am considered by many to be the father of the multi-billion dollar “imprinted sportswear industry.”  I started other magazines and shows, and sold the company and “retired” at a young age.

My retirement didn’t last long.  I have owned and/or operated many magazines and trade shows, travel businesses, retail stores, manufacturing companies, printing company, typesetting business, advertising agency, marketing companies, convention services businesses, souvenir and gift businesses, tourist attractions, resort businesses,  music businesses, computer software company, a consulting company, a food franchise, internet businesses, and more.  I have written numerous articles, books, training programs, and manuals.  I have spoken at conferences and trade shows across North America and in Europe, Australia, and China.

From 1992 to 1996, I was President of Advanstar Expositions, a company owned at the time by Goldman Sachs.  Advanstar was one of the largest producers of trade shows and conferences in the world.  From 1996 to 2001, I was CEO of 1st Communications, a company owned by Bain Capital, Triumph Capital Group, and me.  1st Communications made a series of multi-million dollar acquisitions to build one of the largest trade show businesses — the largest in terms of the number of annual events.  1st Communications also developed one of the first online job and resume businesses using a network of over 1,000 websites.  That business was sold to The Washington Post in 2001, and I “retired” to Atlanta, Georgia.

I discovered corruption in the federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia, and I will not stop until these judges are exposed for the world to see.  People will tell you that I’m as tenacious as they come.  I will spend the rest of my life on this if necessary.

I’m not an attorney.  I was accepted to law school but decided to go into business instead.  Since 2006, I’ve gotten quite a legal education.  At this point, I’m confident that I can do a better job than any attorney would, and I work cheap.

I come from a media family.  My father was one of the pioneers of the television industry.  He was the President of the ABC Television station in Orlando for the last 15 years of his career.  My brother was a TV news anchorman and trainer of news, weather, and sportscasters.  I was a radio and TV announcer in high school and college.

I started several companies in college.  I was accepted to law school.  Thank Heavens I went into business instead.

I was a magazine publishing company owner / publisher for 30 years.  I’ve been the publisher, President, or Vice-President of over 100 magazines.  I have also been a trade show / conference producer for 30 years.  I’ve been a speaker at conferences all around the world.  I’ve lectured at major universities.  I’m the author of hundreds of magazine articles, books, manuals, conference programs.

I’m an expert in SWOT Analysis — Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.  I’ve written hundreds of business plans for small start-ups to multi-billion dollar businesses.  I’ve built internet sites that generate over 1,600,000 users per month.

From 2008 to 2010, I led a successful effort to clean up corruption in Ontario Canada. 

Current
  • Chief Activist at Lawless America 
  • CEO at The Windsor Companies 

 

Past
  • CEO at 1st Communications
  • CEO at Professional Trade Shows
  • President at Advanstar Expositions
  • President at The Windsor Companies
Education
  • Texas Tech University
  • University of Kentucky
  • The University of Texas at Austin
Linked In Public Profile
 

http://www.linkedin.com/in/williammichaelwindsor

 
Summary

Serial entrepreneur. I’ve started over 50 companies since I was a junior at Texas Tech University.  It’s what I do.   I guess my goal is to just keep doing it.  I don’t believe I will ever truly “retire.”

Specialties

Breathing life into new ideas, generating ideas, marketing, management, training, sales training, building management teams, acquisitions, divestitures.

 

 

Experience

Chief Activist

Lawless America

August 2005 – Present – Sioux Falls, South Dakota

LawlessAmerica.com began as the story of William M. Windsor’s personal experience with judicial corruption and government corruption.  Due to publicity about his efforts with the United States Supreme Court, thousands of people began telling Bill their stories, and this site morphed into a site dedicated to exposing dishonesty and corruption in government while presenting ways to battle this epidemic. 

CEO

The Windsor Companies

April 2001 – 2012

After I “retired” for the second time in 2001, I dedicated time to raising money for a project at Texas Tech University; founded a donut franchise; traveled to all 50 states by car writing a book and taking photographs; operated a music business; and started several travel businesses. 

CEO

1st Communications

July 1996 – March 2001

From 1996 to 2001, I was CEO of 1st Communications, a company owned by Bain Capital, Triumph Capital Group, and me.  1st Communications made a series of acquisitions to build one of the largest trade show businesses — the largest in terms of the number of annual events.  1st Communications also developed one of the first online job and resume businesses using a network of over 1,000 websites.  That business was sold to The Washington Post in 2001, and I “retired” to Atlanta, Georgia to be near grandchildren-to-be.

CEO

Professional Trade Shows

1996 – 2001

President

Advanstar Expositions

Privately Held; 501-1000 employees; Publishing industry

July 1992 – July 1996

From 1992 to 1996, I was President of Advanstar Expositions, a company owned at the time by Goldman Sachs. Advanstar was one of the largest producers of trade shows and conferences in the world.

President

The Windsor Companies

College – August 1992 

I began my career as a junior at Texas Tech University.  I’ve started over 50 companies in my business career.  I became involved in the T-shirt business in college, and after several years as a retailer, wholesaler, and manufacturer, I launched the trade magazine and trade show for the industry.  I started other magazines and shows, sold the company and “retired” at a young age.  I have owned and/or operated many magazines and trade shows, travel businesses, retail stores, manufacturing companies, printing company, typesetting business, advertising agency, marketing companies, convention services businesses, souvenir and gift businesses, tourist attractions, resort businesses, music businesses, computer software company, a consulting company, a food franchise, internet businesses, and more.  I’ve written numerous articles, books, training programs, and manuals.  I’ve spoken at conferences and trade shows across North America and in Europe, Australia, and China.

Education 

Texas Tech University

BBA, Marketing

I worked full-time during college.  My first two years I worked as an announcer at radio and television stations.  I had a television talk show in the summer before my senior year on the ABC station in Orlando, Florida.  The last two years were spent owning and operating a T-shirt and gift business, a bail bond service for students, and a retail store selling a variety of student-oriented products.  I was also the Texas representative for College Marketing Research – responsible for obtaining over 10,000 credit card applications for Humble Oil, conducting campus surveys for magazines, and more.  I was accepted to law school but decided I enjoyed making money too much to spend two years studying night and day.

Activities and Societies: Student Senator (2 years), Delta Tau Delta Fraternity (President), Interfraternity Council (Vice-President), Alpha Epsilon Rho, Intramural Athletics, Speech and Debate Team, Faculty-Student Discipline Committee, Who’s Who in American Colleges and Universities, All-University Recognition for Leadership.

University of Kentucky

Business

I attended summer school.

Activities and Societies: I worked at the campus radio stations.

The University of Texas at Austin

Radio-TV-Film

I didn’t feel comfortable at the University of Texas.  I had a lot of bad dates, and I wasn’t comfortable with all the hippies.  When my parents moved from Lubbock, I seized the opportunity to leave Austin and get back to Lubbock and Texas Tech.

Activities and Societies: I pledged Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, and I was involved in student government activities.

 

Additional Information

Websites:
Twitter:
Interests:

Travel, photography, writing, helping others, exposing corruption

Groups and Associations:
  • Media Professionals
  • Government Corruption

  • Media Professionals Worldwide

  • Texas Tech Alumni

  • Texas Tech Alumni Association Networking Group
  • Texas Tech Group
  • Texas Tech University – Students and Alumni
  • Texas Tech University Graduates
  • Texas Tech University Networking Group

  • Texas Tech University Rawls College of Business Alumni

  • Travel, Destination and Tourism Photography

Personal Information

Address:

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

Marital status: 
         
           Single

#BillWindsor
#WilliamMWindsor
#LawlessAmerica

Professional Misconduct Complaint Against Carl Hugo Anderson of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young

Attorney Carl Hugo Anderson charged with Professional Misconduct

Carl Hugo Anderson is an attorney with Hawkins, Parnell, and Young in Atlanta, Georgia. 

I have filed a lawsuit against Carl Anderson and his firm, Hawkins, Parnell, and Young. 

I have also filed a Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl H. Anderson.

Continue reading Professional Misconduct Complaint Against Carl Hugo Anderson of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young

We live in Lawless America

Lawless America

We live in Lawless America.

You’re saying to yourself, this is stupid.  We have lots of laws.  Yes, we do…but we live in Lawless America.

Continue reading We live in Lawless America

My Story

My story is the discovery that our legal system is broken. 

I always knew there were problems, but I thought it was just dishonest lawyers.  I never dreamed that judges are corrupt and routinely commit crimes because they have the power to do anything they want.

The following is from a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by me with the United States Supreme Court, and I have inserted some additional information from various affidavits and court filings to tell My Story:

In August 2005, Maid of the Mist Corporation and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. (jointly “Maid”) filed a civil action against Alcatraz Media, LLC, Alcatraz Media, Inc. (jointly “Alcatraz”) and William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or the “Petitioner”) (Alcatraz and Windsor jointly “A&W.”) The action was filed in Gwinnett County Georgia Court. It was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in March 2006 as Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE (“MIST-1”). The action was originally assigned to Judge Forrester, but he recused himself, and the case was assigned to Judge Orinda D. Evans (“Judge Evans”) [1]  Neither Alcatraz nor I knew Judge Forrester, and neither of us had ever had any dealings of any type with him.  It seems he recused himself due to some relationship with Maid of the Mist or their attorneys.

We need to go back a few months for all of this to make sense.  On March 3, 2005, Maid of the Mist entered into an oral agreement with Alcatraz to allow Alcatraz to purchase tickets for the boat ride at Niagara Falls from Maid at a discounted rate for the entire 2005 season (April to October).  The terms of the oral contract were specific.  The period for the oral contract was less than a year, so it was a binding oral contract under Georgia law.

Sandra Carlson of Maid of the Mist entered into the contract with Alcatraz.  I was visiting Alcatraz’s office that day when one of the salespeople needed some tickets for a group to ride the Maid of the Mist.  I knew that the business development person handling the dealings with Maid of the Mist was unavailable as her mother had just had a stroke.  So, while I didn’t work for Alcatraz, I’ll do anything to help my son, so I picked up the phone and called Sandra Carlson at Maid of the Mist.  She entered into the contract with me for Alcatraz to buy tickets for the entire 2005 season.  The discussion was very specific because I could see from the file that Carlson had been a flake to deal with.  Carlson also made the same agreement with Carolyn Ballard Bazzo (“Bazzo”), who called her while her mother was sleeping in the hospital.

Carlson sent faxes to both Bazzo and me following the telephone conversations of March 3, 2005.  Maid agreed to provide Certificates of Insurance naming Alcatraz as additional insured, and Maid did.  Maid agreed to provide information for Alcatraz to use on its websites, and they did.  Alcatraz agreed to submit a voucher (E-Ticket) for Maid’s approval, and Alcatraz did.  Maid approved the voucher.  The approval of the voucher was the final obligation agreed to when the contract was entered into on March 3, 2005.  It still took a long time and a lot of hassles to get the information needed from Sandra Carlson, but it finally was resolved in early April.

Alcatraz advertised for Maid of the Mist boat tours at Alcatraz’s website www.niagarafallstours.net.  Alcatraz advertised for various tours in the Niagara Falls area, as well as for tours in Canada, New York and in others cities in the Northeast.  This website did not represent that it was sponsored by Maid.  Rather, it expressly represented that it was run by Alcatraz.  Alcatraz has also used additional websites to promote its 74 different Niagara Falls tours and activities and its 17 tours that include a Maid of the Mist ticket.

Alcatraz began generating excellent sales for Maid of the Mist in March 2005.

Alcatraz honored all of the terms of the oral contract with Maid.  Maid breached the contract in a number of ways.  Maid refused service to some Alcatraz customers who had valid E-Tickets.  Initially, this was probably because no one at Maid bothered to advise the ticket takers that Alcatraz was issuing valid E-Tickets.  Maid informed some Alcatraz customers that they should purchase their tickets directly from Maid at a lower price and file chargebacks against Alcatraz to get their money back from Alcatraz.  Not cool.  Maid charged Alcatraz for some customers who did not receive the boat ride.  Maid failed to give Alcatraz certain discounts that had been promised.

For reasons unknown at the time, Maid created false stories in an attempt to damage Alcatraz and manufacture a claim with which to breach the contract with Alcatraz.  Upon information and belief, this was because Maid was in breach of contract with the Niagara Parks Commission (“NPC”) and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”).

Carlson and Schul sent letters, faxes, and emails for Maid to Alcatraz that contained false claims.  Glynn, Schul, and Carlson made false claims by telephone.  Carlson sent letters on June 14 and July 19, 2005 that contained false claims of problems caused by Alcatraz.  The July 19, 2005 letter asked for Alcatraz to make changes to its E-Ticket.  Alcatraz made changes to the E-Ticket.   Carlson then sent an email claiming the July 19 letter asked for changes to the website, but the letter said no such thing.  Schul then sent a letter and emails that contained false claims of problems caused by Alcatraz.  On July 29, 2005, Maid breached the contract with Alcatraz by declaring the contract to be terminated.  But the oral contract was for the entire 2005 season, and Maid of the Mist did not have the right to terminate it until it expired in mid-October 2005.

It was all totally bizarre.  It made no sense at the time.  Alcatraz tried repeatedly for a month to get Maid or Maid’s Attorneys to speak with Alcatraz about the problem, but they refused.  My son asked me to handle the legal stuff for him, so I am the one who tried to get them to respond.

Despite Maid’s written promise to Alcatraz on July 29, 2005 that Maid would honor tickets purchased prior to July 29, 2005, Maid subsequently refused to honor some Alcatraz tickets purchased prior to that date.  Not surprising.  Maid refused to honor these tickets despite the fact that Alcatraz had provided Maid with over $10,000 in prepayments, a written payment guarantee, and credit card authorization to charge any tickets purchased for the 2005 season, thus guaranteeing Maid that it would be paid for any Alcatraz customer who showed up with a voucher.  It was the first week in August 2005 when Maid of the Mist began refusing service to Alcatraz customers.

Maid of the Mist began defaming Alcatraz and telling Alcatraz’s customers that Alcatraz was an Internet Scam. (Alcatraz has been in business for 11 years and is the largest company in the world selling tickets and tours as Maid of the Mist knew quite well.)  In August, September, and October 2005, Maid refused to honor vouchers for more than eight hundred (800) Alcatraz customers.

Alcatraz issued refunds to customers who placed orders that it believed would not be honored and to customers who contacted Alcatraz who claimed that Maid refused to honor the Alcatraz vouchers.  Every customer was refunded by Alcatraz.  Maid sold tickets to Alcatraz’s customers directly and generated a greater income as a result.

I was the father of the 75% owner of Alcatraz.  I was never an officer, director, shareholder, owner, investor, or employee of Alcatraz, but I stepped in to handle the legal problem on behalf of Alcatraz.  This is important because Maid of the Mist might have had a basis to sue me if I was involved in the company in one of those manners, but I wasn’t.  For the first three years of Ryan’s company, I was CEO of a large company in Ohio.  Ryan started and built Alcatraz all on his own.

I placed five phone calls, sent five faxes, and sent approximately 20 emails from July 28, 2005 until August 28, 2005 in an attempt to get someone from Maid or a Maid attorney to speak with me about the problem.    No one from Maid of the Mist and no Maid attorney ever spoke to Alcatraz or me until after the lawsuit was filed on August 29, 2005.

Since it appeared that Maid of the Mist was hell-bent on breaching the contract and screwing my baby boyâ’s company, I called the Niagara Parks Commission (“NPC”) to see if we could go into competition with Maid of the Mist.  I was turned away, but the NPC told Maid of the Mist about my call.  Less than three weeks later, we were sued.

It was August 25, 2005 when Christopher Glynn (“Glynn”), President of Maid of the Mist signed a sworn affidavit to be used with the filing of the lawsuit [MIST-1 Docket #1.]    46 of the 50 paragraphs were false or incorrect.  Proof to show that as many as 46 of the statements are false is set out on pages 364 to 553 of Dec #25 (MIST-1 Docket #462).

Glynn swore that his statements were his personal knowledge, but that was false.  Personal knowledge means the information is known from direct experience rather than hearing about it from someone else or making it up.  Glynn swore that everything in his affidavit was true and correct, but that was false.  In deposition testimony, Maid Marketing VP Timothy P. Ruddy testified that some of the statements in Glynn’s August 25, 2005 affidavit were not true.  In his deposition testimony, Controller Robert J. Schul testified that some of the statements in Glynn’s August 25, 2005 affidavit were not true.  Alcatraz, Bazzo, and I testified in depositions that statements in Glynn’s affidavit were not true at all, and we had a lot of proof in emails and letters.

The drafting of this affidavit by Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, Mr. Marc W. Brown, and Mr. Arthur P. Russ, while under oath as officers of the court as members of the Bar, was improper, and statements in the affidavit were known to be false by the attorneys.

When Maid sued, they sued Alcatraz and me personally.  The lawsuit falsely and maliciously claimed that I operated my own business and did all types of things including theft and bribery.  Maid and Maid attorneys knew this was false.  Ruddy testified that I should not have been included in many of the sworn paragraphs in Glynn’s affidavit and verification.  Maid never produced any evidence to prove that Maid had any valid legal claim against me for anything.

When I became involved in all of this, I was very naive.  I felt that the judicial system was fair and honest, so I was confident that the courts would vindicate us and put Christopher Glynn in jail for perjury for a long, long time. (Five years later, I know that our federal court system is totally corrupt.  I am not an attorney, but I have spent over 7,000 hours studying the law, so I know more about the legal issues in this case than most attorneys.)

On behalf of Alcatraz and myself, I filed a sworn response to Maid’s lawsuit stating under oath under penalty of perjury that everything Glynn had said was false.

Nothing much happened in the fall of 2005, but in March 2006 after we subpoenaed Glynn for a deposition, Maid of the Mist filed a motion with the court seeking a temporary restraining order.  That was when Judge Orinda D. Evans was assigned to the case.  She read the two affidavits that were totally contradictory about the facts, and she granted the TRO to Maid.  Our attorney and I were shocked.

When a party to a lawsuit gets a TRO, they have to post a bond to cover the other party’s costs in the lawsuit if they lose.  We asked for $250,000.  Judge Orinda D. Evans only required $5,000.  It should have been over $1.5 million as it turns out.  Awarding such a ridiculously low bond was another strong signal of the bias of Judge Evans (something that judges are sworn not to have).

At first, I suspected that Judge Orinda D. Evans had an incompetent young law clerk who was making a mess of this.  I thought the judge just wasn’t paying attention.  It didn’t take long for me to discover that Judge Evans was simply a bad judge.  Then it didn’t take me long after that to begin organizing the proof that she was a dishonest, corrupt judge.  

Every order that Judge Evans issued was against us.  Out of 40 contested motions, it was 40 for Maid of the Mist and zero for Alcatraz and me.  This was all due to the dishonesty of Judge Orinda D. Evans.

During the discovery period, we took depositions and obtained documents.  Our goal in all of this was to prove in THEIR WORDS that the verified complaint was totally false.  We succeeded.

In February 2007, Judge Orinda D. Evans gave us a short meeting in her chambers.  I informed her that we had documented proof of over 400 counts of perjury and that we had proven that the verified complaint was totally false.  She refused to allow it to be discussed.

At this point, I felt for sure that she was corrupt.  But then she said a few things that caused our attorney and me to think we had won the case.  But as she had done many times before, she reversed herself or “forgot” those things later.  Any time we thought we prevailed on something, she ignored that and turned whatever it was against us.

Shortly after the February 7, 2007 meeting, Maid of the Mist filed two contracts under seal for an in-camera inspection (review by only her).  These were their contracts with the governments of Ontario and New York State.  We felt for sure that they would have vital information for our defense.  Judge Evans reviewed them and said they would not be provided to us.  That is supposed to mean they were not relevant to the case.

All types of dishonesty by Maid of the Mist, their attorneys, and Judge Orinda D. Evans took place from 2005 to now.  It would just take way too long to recount it all.  But rest assured that I have it all documented.

The next big development was motions for summary judgment.  This is a legal procedure where a judge can end a case without a jury if it is so clearly one-sided.  If there is a “fact issue,” an important issue in the case that is disputed, there cannot be a summary judgment.  EVERYTHING was disputed in this case, so a summary judgment was impossible.

But you’ve already figured out what happened.  Judge Orinda D. Evans granted the summary judgment for Maid of the Mist and ordered Alcatraz and me to pay over $400,000 in Maid of the Mist’s legal fees.  To say that I was shocked was an understatement.  I read the order, and it was one false statement and lie after another.  The documents filed with the court proved her order was totally false.

Judge Orinda D. Evans granted the summary judgment to Maid on a legal cause of action called “tortious interference” with alleged damages of less than $100, though (1) A&W provided sworn affidavits from the four customers involved who allegedly did not spend $100, and each swore that they did buy tickets from Maid, so there were no damages, and (2) the only sworn testimony before the court was that there was an oral contract breached by Maid, and thus there was no tortious interference by Alcatraz.  Damages are a requirement for tortious interference, so the fact that there were no damages was critical.  We proved that with affidavits from the people Maid claimed created the damages. 

Alcatraz and I swore under oath at all times that Maid made up all of the sworn claims in the Verified Complaint and motion for injunctive relief in MIST-1. Judge Orinda D. Evans refused to even consider A&W’s charges of perjury, false sworn pleadings, and Rule 11 violations by Maid and Maid’s attorneys.  I documented all the lies with citations to the record.

We appealed the summary judgment order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Naive me thought we would finally get this overturned and headed in the right direction.  But three judges rubber-stamped Judge Orinda D. Evans’ order.  They TOTALLY ignored every error of law and fact raised by our attorneys.  I was flabbergasted.  I was literally sick for several weeks from it.  I worked closely with the attorneys and researched all of the appeal issues, so I knew the Eleventh Circuit had to overturn Judge Orinda D. Evans.  When I was able to think straight, I figured they supported their friend, Judge Evans, to protect her from indictment, conviction, and impeachment.

So, on to The Supreme Court, I thought.  Our attorneys then educated me that The Supreme Court is no longer a court of appeals.  They don’t review actions of the appellate courts.  They decide if a case is interesting enough to them.  The odds of that in 2009 were 1 out of 100.  We were told it could cost us another $250,000 in legal fees if we went on, and we might be held responsible for Maid of the Mist’s legal fees since that had happened to us before.  That would mean $500,000 or more.  So, through clenched teeth, we reached an out-of-court settlement with Maid in December 2008 to stop the outrageous legal expense in MIST-1. Alcatraz and I refused to provide and did not provide general releases to Maid or Maid’s Attorneys.  We refused to provide releases because I was determined to go after them again.

I tried and tried to find an attorney to represent me, but no attorney was willing to sue a judge.  They felt the federal judges would ruin them if they did.

So, in April 2009, I began efforts (representing myself) to reopen the case pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b) primarily due to fraud upon the courts. A major factor was the discovery of new evidence that had been concealed from us by Maid and Judge Orinda D. Evans.[2]  I obtained copies of the two contracts that Maid had been ordered to file under seal with Judge Evans.  As soon as I looked at them, I knew that they were vital to our case.  After obtaining some additional information through Freedom of Information Act requests, I felt sure that Maid of the Mist had filed bogus documents with Judge Orinda D. Evans.  So, my task was simple; get the court to produce those documents, and we would get the case reopened and win.  The bad guys would go to prison, and the Windsors would live happily ever after.

Surprise, surprise, Judge Orinda D. Evans refused.  She began issuing perjury-filled orders.  I knew now that she was as corrupt as a judge could possibly be.  The only reason to keep the documents hidden was to hide the fact that she had committed perjury and obstruction of justice…and to protect Maid of the Mist from losing the lawsuit and having its key managers all found guilty of hundreds of counts of perjury.

(One of the attorneys who refused to represent me out of fear of the judges gave me some advice.  He told me to appeal early and often, so I did.  As a result, I now have dozens of orders from Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge William S. Duffey, and the Eleventh Circuit.  This gives me dozens and dozens and dozens of documents that establish the dishonesty and corruption.)

Not to be blocked without a fight after Judge Orinda D. Evans tried to block my efforts, I subpoenaed Judge Evans!  This probably doesn’t happen very often.  Then some truly bizarre things happened.  Judge Evans filed a motion in her own court in my case.  Judges can’t do that, but she did.  She hired the United States Attorney’s Office (the same people who are supposed to go after corrupt judges).  On June 3, 2009, the U.S. Attorney representing Judge Evans filed a motion to quash a subpoena for the deposition in MIST-1. [Pet.App.171 – “Mandamus Affidavit #1 — “Aff #1” ¶39.] [3] [Deposition Action Doc. 1.] [4]  The motion was referred to Judge William S. Duffey (“Judge Duffey”), and this created Civil Action 1:09-CV-01543-WSD (the “Deposition Action”).[5]

Judge Duffey had never had any dealings with me prior to the referral of the motion to quash.  I had never heard the name “Judge William S. Duffey” either.  There was no conference held, and there was no hearing held, despite my motions requesting both.[6]  On June 8, 2009, Judge Duffey William S. stayed the properly subpoenaed deposition.[7]  Judge Duffey made a number of incorrect statements in the stay order dated June 8, 2009.[8] The order was totally pro-Judge Evans, and it indicated that Judge Duffey may be biased.[9]

On June 10, 2009, the U.S. Attorney supplemented Judge Evans’ motion to quash.[10]  On June 18, 2009, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Staying Case and the Twenty-Ninth Declaration of William M. Windsor (Dec #29).[11] [12] This was filed to note errors in Judge Duffey’s order.[13]  On June 30, 2009, an Order to Quash the Deposition of Judge Evans was issued by Judge Duffey.[16] [17] The order described me as “scurrilous and irresponsible.”  The legal definition of scurrilous is “evil.”  The legal definition of irresponsible is “mentally or financially incapable.”  I am neither scurrilous nor irresponsible!

This was written by a man who did not know me, had never even seen me, and who made such a statement and decision based solely on my three uncontroverted sworn affidavits.  In 2009, there were zero (0) affidavits filed by Maid in MIST-1, the Deposition Action, or MIST-2.  So, my testimony and evidence stood alone as the record before the court.[18]  

The only explanation for this slander is that Judge William S. Duffey was predisposed to bias against me because I had the audacity to try to depose Judge Orinda D. Evans to obtain information that was available only from Judge Evans that I desperately needed to reopen the case in MIST-1.[19]  There is nothing scurrilous and irresponsible in the three affidavits that Judge William S. Duffey had before him when he entered the June 30, 2009 order (Dec #29, Dec #35, and Dec #34).  The statements made therein are no different than the statements made herein.  Judge Orinda D. Evans made as many as 200 false statements in two orders in MIST-1. She knew statements that she made in her orders were false.  She obstructed justice by concealing documents from me.  These are facts, proven with evidence that I filed in each of the three civil actions.

On July 27, 2009, I filed Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD (“MIST-2”), an independent action in equity for fraud upon the court and RICO.[20]  On July 28, 2009, when I was told by the District Court Clerk’s Office that Judge William S. Duffey (the judge who called me “scurrilous and irresponsible”) would be presiding in MIST-2, I immediately went home and prepared a Motion to Recuse Judge Duffey and a Motion for Change of Venue.  I returned later in the day and filed.[21]

On July 30, 2009, a TRO Hearing was held. Judge Duffey denied the motion.[22] Judge William S. Duffey distributed an order on my motions regarding service of process on Canadian defendants, representation, motion to change venue, and motion to recuse. All were denied.[23]   Judge Duffey was antagonistic and biased in the hearing.  Details of this are provided in the Transcript of the Temporary Restraining Order Hearing.[24]  False statements in the July 30, 2009 order are listed in the Affidavit of Prejudice.[25]

On August 4, 2009, I filed an Emergency Motion to Recuse Judge Duffey.  I advised Judge Duffey that I would seek a Writ of Mandamus if there was not a prompt response.  This motion appears on the MIST-2 Docket as a “Motion for Leave” because Judge Duffey ordered that I must first submit proposed motions to him with a request for approval to file.[26]  This motion was pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§144.  The filing included an Affidavit of Prejudice[27] and a 28 U.S.C.§144 Certificate of Good Faith.[28]

On August 10, 2009, I filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Eleventh Circuit seeking to have Judge Duffey disqualified.[29]  The Affidavit of Prejudice[30] and a 28 U.S.C.§144 Certificate of Good Faith[31] were included as exhibits.  On September 17, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.[33]

At some point during all this, I took my first petition for writ of certiorari (appeal) to The Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court decided it was “not worthy” of their consideration.  I spelled out the fraud and corruption for them, but they ignored it.

Like the Energizer Bunny, I just kept going.  Every order issued by Judge Orinda D. Evans and Judge William S. Duffey was not valid based upon the facts or the law.  They were totally corrupt.  The judges didn’t make mistakes.  They were intentionally committing crimes to try to stop me. 

I reported all of this to the United States Attorney (same one who represents Judge Orinda D. Evans), the FBI, the Justice Department, every member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and many others.  No one would do anything!  They completely ignored me.

So, I sued them.  I prepared everything and flew to Washington, DC to file there as I thought I would find honest judges in the shadow of The Capitol and The Supreme Court.  I ran right smack dab into Judge Richard J. Leon.  He proved to be just as corrupt.  He dismissed my case on bogus grounds and did a lot of nasty stuff to me.  At this point, I started to realize that the corruption in our federal courts may be everywhere.  I don’t know that yet, but from the reports I have gotten from people all over the country, I suspect it is true.  We have a Constitutional Crisis on our hands.  The federal judges have hijacked the Constitution, and they are holding us all hostage.

I continued my efforts in Judge Evans’ court and Judge Duffey’s court, and they lied and cheated me every step of the way.  I appealed just about everything to the Eleventh Circuit, and they lied and cheated me every step of the way.  In fact, in 62 pages of orders (perhaps 25 orders) from the Eleventh Circuit, they never ever, even once, addressed ANY of my points or error or law.  They ignored the facts and what the law actually provides and ruled against me in one-sentence orders much of the time.

The abuse has escalated.  Judge Evans found me in contempt of court.  She warned me that “You are playing with fire.”  She threatened to put me in jail.  She fined me.  She hit me with more legal fees.  Lying every step of the way.  Violating the law again and again and again.  Same for Dishonest Duffey.  He’s just as bad — maybe worse — a real snake.  Most of his lies are proven with documents that he pretends do not exist.

Judge William S. Duffey and Judge Orinda D. Evans have taken the unbelievably corrupt acts to a new level.  They have the Clerk of the Court doing all types of things.  My filings magically disappear.  I presented a new lawsuit to be filed, and they refuse to file it.  There is no legal right whatsoever for them to do this. but there is nowhere to turn.  I will try filing in Washington, DC again, but that is probably a waste of time.

At this point, I had two appeals pending in Washington DC, a dozen at the Eleventh Circuit, and one at The Supreme Court.  During a conversation with a clerk at The Supreme Court, I learned by accident that one can file a petition for writ of mandamus with The Supreme Court.  This is not an appeal, so it isn’t something that they can ignore.  They have to render a decision on it.  So I filed three.  One each to disqualify Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge William S. Duffey, and one for the seven corrupt judges who I have identified at the Eleventh Circuit.  The Supreme Court has given the accused judges until December 15 to file responses.

This will be a landmark decision.  I have asked The Supreme Court whether they will stop federal judges from voiding the Constitution.  I have asked them whether they will expose the corruption in the federal courts.  I have asked them whether federal judges may continue to ignore the facts, ignore the law, and violate the Constitutional rights of the people who appear as parties in their courts.  I prayed that they would have the guts to blow the corruption wide open, but they are all products of the same corrupt system, so I am shocked but not surprised that the Supreme Court issued three rulings on January 18, 2011 that allow federal judges to continue to violate the Constitution, treat it as if it doesn’t exist, and ignore the law and the facts.  My best chance is if this story gets out to enough people that we get public pressure building to have someone somewhere do something.

Judges are supposed to tell the truth at all times, but these judges have made false statements routinely.  These were material false statements made under the judges’ oath of office in a federal proceeding.  These judges knew statements that they made were false.

Judges are supposed to provide due process to the parties in their courts, but I have had just about every form of due process denied.  I have not been allowed to present evidence, call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, have an impartial judge, and much more.

These judges routinely ignored the facts and the law and even invented their own facts.[43]  These judges have made rulings that are absolutely contrary to the law.  Judge Orinda D. Evans even denied us any ability to obtain the names of witnesses that we needed to depose.  She granted a summary judgment for Maid on the key issue in the case – “ an oral agreement for six months in 2005 — based upon the following: Maid testified that its president was not aware of an agreement with Alcatraz.  There was no other testimony from Maid other than this one statement in the Verified Complaint! Alcatraz provided a Verified Answer, multiple sworn affidavits, and extensive deposition testimony detailing the exact terms of the oral agreement from the people who made the oral agreement with Maid.  This clearly created at least a fact issue that defeated summary judgment, but Judge Orinda D. Evans invented facts that weren’t true and weren’t in the record, ignored the truth, and claimed her facts trumped the A&W’s sworn testimony.  As there was a contract, there was no tortious interference, but there was breach of contract by Maid, and A&W should have won the case.[44]

Detailed background facts regarding the judicial misconduct of these judges is provided in the three petitions for writ of mandamus:

Judge Orinda D. Evans

Judge William S. Duffey

Judges of the Eleventh Circuit

Katherine Albrecht asked me on her radio show why I have kept going.  My friends and relatives will tell you that I am the most tenacious person they have ever known.  I will not stop.  I will get these judges indicted, convicted, and impeached, or I will die trying.  They “stole” from my child.  I’ll fight back against anyone who messes with me wrongfully, but you mess with one of my children or grandchildren, and you’ve declared war against me.

I obviously have a personal stake in all of this.  Most people who pursue a cause do, but now, I have met and spoken with so many people who have been cheated by corrupt judges that I feel I have a big responsibility to them as well.  I will fight for everyone.

My son said, “Dad, all of this is well and good, but what is your solution to the problems?”  I sat down at the keyboard, and did a brain dump.  Here are my ideas to correct the problem of judicial corruption.

I have three grandchildren – Madison, Mackenzie, and Collin.  I drove Madison’s carpool once a week.  She was unbelievably intelligent and worldly for a seven-year-old.  As we drove home one day, she told me they were studying Martin Luther King.  She asked me to tell her about those times, so I did.  She asked me what I did to stop the prejudice and all the problems.  I told her that I was never prejudiced, but I didn’t really do anything.  She asked if I had ever done anything that made a big difference in the world.  I said, no, unfortunately not.  She quickly assured me that she would make a difference in the world.  I absolutely believe that is true.  Well, I hope I can do something vitally important to every American with my efforts to expose corruption in the federal courts.  We are all in trouble.  Madison and I want to help.

That WAS My Story in 2010.  What has happened since has been nothing short of world shattering….

  

[1] MIST-1_Doc.1.

[2] MIST-1_Docs.361 and 362.

[3] The Mandamus Affidavit of William M. Windsor is on pages 161-185 in the Appendix (Pet.App.). “M-Aff #” is the abbreviation used for this affidavit herein. “Doc.” is the abbreviation for Docket used herein.

[4] Pet.App. ### indicates page number in the Appendix to this Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

[5] Pet.App.171 — M-Aff #1, ¶40.

[6] Pet.App.171 — M-Aff #1, ¶41.

[7] Deposition Action_Doc.4; Pet.App.172 — M-Aff #1, ¶42.

[8] Pet.App.161-170, 190-191, Affidavit of Prejudice ¶¶34-67 and 118-121.

[9] Pet.App.172 — M-Aff #1, ¶43.

[10] Deposition Action_Doc.8; Pet.App.127 — M-Aff #1, ¶45.

[11] Declarations and affidavits of William M. Windsor have been numbered. “Dec #__” is used as the abbreviation for each. Dec #5 is the Fifth, Dec #34 is the Thirty-Fourth, etc.

[12] Deposition Action_Doc.15.

[13] Pet.App.172 — M-Aff #1, ¶47.

[14] Deposition Action_Doc.21; Pet.App.172 — M-Aff #1, ¶49.

[15] Deposition Action_Doc.24; Pet.App.173 — M-Aff #1, ¶50.

[16] Deposition Action_Doc.32.

[17] Pet.App.24.

[18] Pet.App.173 — M-Aff #1, ¶51.

[19] Pet.App.173 — M-Aff#1, ¶51.

[20] Pet.App.173-174, ¶53; MIST-2_Doc.1.

[21] MIST-2_Docs.15 and 17; Pet.App.174 — M-Aff #1, ¶55.

[22] MIST-2_Doc.31.

[23] Pet.App.19; Pet.App.174 — M-Aff #1, ¶56; MIST-2_Doc.22.

[24] MIST-2_Doc.48; Pet.App.174, ¶56.

[25] Pet.App.71-77, ¶¶121-141; Pet.App.174 — M-Aff #1, ¶56.

[26] MIST-2_Doc.36.

[27] Pet.App.161.

[28] Pet.App.114; Pet.App.174-175 — M-Aff #1, ¶57.

[29] Pet.App.116.

[30] Pet.App.161

[31] Pet.App.114.

[32] Mist-2_Doc.1.

[33] Pet.App.4.

[34] Pet.App.186.

[35] Pet.App.3 and 18.

[36] Pet.App.A.

[37] Pet.App.175 — M-Aff #1, ¶59-60.

[38] Pet.App.176 — M-Aff #1, ¶62.

[39] See MIST-1_Doc.474, Pet.App.176; M-Aff #1, ¶63.

[40] MIST-1_Doc.377, Exhibits 9 and 22; see Pet.App.90-101, ¶¶189-264.

[41] MIST-1_Doc.174, P23: 24-25, P24: 1-7, P34: 4-7, P44: 6-8.

[42] MIST-1_Doc.361.

[43] Pet.App.99, ¶245; Pet.App.178 — M-Aff #1, ¶78.

[44] MIST-2_Doc.1.

[45] MIST-1_Doc.406.

[46] MIST-1_Doc.462.

[47] MIST-2_Doc.1.

[48] Pet.App.85-104, ¶¶172-276.

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 judicial corruption, government corruption, law enforcement corruption, attorney wrongdoing/corruption, and political 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

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com 

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

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

Copyright, 2022, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor

Screwed, Glued, & Tattooed … INjustice in America

Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed…INjustice in America

I’ve been screwed, glued, and tattooed in federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia and in courts in Georgia, Montana, Idaho, California, Kansas, Florida, and Texas. 

This website includes my story in hopes that someone somewhere will take action to stop this. 

There is nothing funny at all about this, but this was the only photo I could find that looked like a screwed, glued, tattooed person.

Continue reading Screwed, Glued, & Tattooed … INjustice in America

My Story: William M. Windsor

windsor-bill-2005-from-four-generations-2005-11-13-cropped-200w

My story is the discovery that our legal system is broken. 

I always knew there were problems, but I thought it was just dishonest lawyers.  I never dreamed that federal judges are corrupt and routinely commit crimes because they have the power to do anything they want.

The following is from a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by me with the United States Supreme Court, and I have inserted some additional information from various affidavits and court filings to tell My Story:

Continue reading My Story: William M. Windsor