![]() |
In Iowa, the Scott County group Iowans For Accountability recently reached out to their seated defacto grand jury.
Here’s the letter and package that they send to the Grand Jury…
Battling Corruption and Dishonesty in Government
![]() |
In Iowa, the Scott County group Iowans For Accountability recently reached out to their seated defacto grand jury.
Here’s the letter and package that they send to the Grand Jury…
![]() |
Nancy Lazaryan sent the members of the Minnesota Judicial Branch a Memorandum on the Grand Jury in the State of Minnesota.
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that removed grand juries was not validly passed.
Nancy and others have fought, but thus far, they have not prevailed…
![]() |
Our best hope to get judicial corruption and government corruption addressed is with our local grand juries.
William M. Windsor has developed a great new initiative to enable many of us to reach grand juries with our criminal complaints. Here’s how….
Â
![]() |
Among our many challenges in battling government corruption and judicial corruption is that we are dealing with pathological liars.
Since I have learned that Georgia allows me to record conversations as long as I am a party and consent, I’ve got my recorders operating whenever and wherever I can get incriminating evidence or proof of lies….
Continue reading Get ’em on Tape — Nail the Government Crooks in Their Own Words
This isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing; this is non-partisan. These people are all dishonest and have been for many years.
It is possible that there is bribery. Judge Michael Ciavarella in Pennsylvania was just sentenced to 28 years in prison for accepting $1.5 million in bribes from the owner of a private prison. Ciavarella and fellow Judge Michael Conahan sent kids to prison for cash.
It is clear that big law firms have a “special relationship” with the judges. Whether there is money involved or not in Atlanta, I do not yet know.
Attorneys will not pursue dishonest judges because they cannot risk their careers. Attorneys tell me that their career would be dead if they even handled a civil case against federal judges.
The news media is similarly afraid of the judges. An investigative reporter with the Atlanta Journal & Constitution wanted to write the story of what I have uncovered, but she took it to her boss, and she was told she couldn’t. The judges have tyrannical power, and the paper would not risk it. Recently, investigative reporter Mark Winne with Channel 2 in Atlanta was in the lobby when I was trying to get to meet with the Grand Jury, and when he found out what I was doing, he disappeared.
We now have an entire branch of the federal government that “self-polices” — acting in any inept, corrupt manner they choose without fear of accountability, have lifetime appointment to the bench and freely abrogate basic legal standards to grant “winks and nods” to parties in favor with the court — evidence and law be damned.
These judges are protected by Congressional Judiciary Committees that arguably have a conflict of interest because all Judiciary Committee members are attorney and members of the same professional organization as the judges they are supposed to provide oversight over the Bar Association. Members of the Judiciary Committees risk professional suicide by taking legislative action on judges. When an election is lost, they would be back practicing law in front of judges who would be unhappy by legislation passed.
Judges commit crimes because they can. They can break the law and get away with it.
Many people are confused and think judges have immunity. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. ( O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).)
Judges have no immunity for crimes committed by them during the terms of their office or prior thereto. United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976 (1974). (See also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128, 96 S. Ct. 984 (1976); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 33 L. Ed. 2d 583, 92 S. Ct. 2614 (1972); United States v. DiCarlo, 565 F.2d 802, 806 (1977); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, supra at 581, United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 03/22/1978); United States v. Anzelmo, 319 F. Supp. 1106, 1118-19 (E.D. La. 1970).
No federal official has ever been held exempt from prosecution for his commission of a federal crime. (United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1938); United States v. Gillock, 587 F.2d 284 (6th Cir. 11/01/1978).)
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise under the RICO Act. ( U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).) [emphasis added.]
The United States Supreme Court acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge “Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through ‘Operation Greylord’, a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago.” (Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793 (U.S. 06/09/1997).
Turning the pages of history, the Supreme Court said in an 1882 decision, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, that:
No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law as defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.
It is the only supreme power in our system of government and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.
In Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, Mr. Justice Douglas said in his dissenting opinion, Ibid. at 140: “If they [federal judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” Mr. Justice Black in his dissent said, Ibid. at 141, that “* * * judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes * * *.”
In United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, a Senator was charged with a § 201 violation. The trial court held that the Speech or Debate Clause precluded criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed and found no constitutional violation for online casino.
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, was concerned with the validity of a subpoena requiring the assistant of a Senator to appear as a witness before a federal grand jury. The Senator intervened and asserted a violation of his constitutional privileges. With reference to the Freedom from Arrest Clause, the Court said, 408 U.S. at 615:
It is, therefore, sufficiently plain that the constitutional freedom from arrest does not exempt Members of Congress from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws, even though imprisonment may prevent or interfere with the performance of their duties as Members. * * * Indeed, implicit in the narrow scope of the privilege of freedom from arrest is, as Jefferson noted, the judgment that legislators ought not to stand above the law they create but ought generally to be bound by it as are ordinary persons.
Finally, we have O’Shea v. Littleton, decided January 15, 1974. The Court said: “…we have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. Cf. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880). On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach “so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress. . . .” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627 (1972).
“We conclude that whatever immunities or privileges the Constitution confers for the purpose of assuring the independence of the co-equal branches of government they do not exempt the member of those branches “from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws.” Criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public officials. Punishment for that conduct will not interfere with the legitimate operations of a branch of government. Historically, the impeachment process has proven to be cumbersome and fraught with political overtones. We believe that the independence of the judiciary is better served when criminal charges against its members are tried in a court rather than in Congress. With a court trial, a judge assured of the protections given to all those charged with criminal conduct. The issues are heard in a calm and reasoned manner and are subject to the rules of evidence, the presumption of innocence, and other safeguards.” (United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 at 519-520.)
“On the basis of the text of the Constitution, its background, its contemporaneous construction, and the pragmatic consequences of its provisions on impeachment, we are convinced that a federal judge is subject to indictment and trial before impeachment and that the district court had jurisdiction to try defendant Kerner.” (United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 02/19/1974).)
{jcomments on}
![]() |
There were a lot of developments on September 1, 2011 in the Atlanta Georgia Grand Jury tampering probe.
After what seemed like hundreds of phone calls and visits to every office in the Fulton County Superior Courthouse, the day ended in the courtroom of Judge Kelly Amanda Lee.
Judge Lee has now become the key player in William M. Windsor’s quest to expose prosecutorial and judicial corruption….
Continue reading Exciting New Developments in Atlanta Grand Jury Tampering Probe
![]() |
Obstruction of Justice is a criminal complaint pursuant to the omnibus clause, or “catch-all provision” of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides:
Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).
Your state should have a similar statute.
Continue reading Obstruction of Justice is almost always a Criminal Complaint against Corrupt Judges
![]() |
Honest Services Fraud (18 USC § 1346) is a criminal charge that you can make to a grand jury against corrupt government officials.
18 USC § 1346 applies the federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 USC 1341 and 1343, respectively) to deprivations of honest services by public officials and employees.
![]() |
I spent another “delightful” day at the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney. The parade of corruption was a sight to behold.
My two cases of evidence were parked on a dolly right next to the door. I changed my sign to read: “EVIDENCE OF GRAND JURY TAMPERING — Act or be an Accessory.”
Once again, I was not allowed in to see the Grand Jury.
BUT, one of the friendly Grand Jurors did take my envelope of evidence as he was leaving….
Continue reading Jury Tampering runs rampant at Fulton County Georgia Grand Jury
![]() |
Among my many moves following the grand jury tampering last Friday and again Tuesday, I have just mailed certified mail return receipt letters to each member of the Grand Jury.
They were personally addressed Grand Juror #1 to #23 and Alternate 1, 2, and 3.
The certified mail will be delivered tomorrow by the United States Postal Service…
Continue reading Windsor sends Certified Return Receipt Letters to Every Grand Juror