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

United States Supreme Court Crime Scene

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

No. 22-7648

In The Supreme Court of the United States

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Petitioner

v.

James N. Hatten, et al, Respondents

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

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

 

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

and Founding Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

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

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

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

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

ARGUMENTS

AN ORDER MUST BE ISSUED ON THE CONFERENCE DECISION

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

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

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

WINDSOR’S CONFERENCE DECISION MUST BE PUBLISHED

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

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

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

WINDSOR’S FILINGS MUST BE DOCKETED

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

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

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

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

      1. This Court’s Rule 29 requires:

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

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

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

ALL ORDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH WINDSOR

MUST BE SENT BY EMAIL

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

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

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests:

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

Submitted this 27th day of November 2023,

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION

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

FURTHER SAITH AFFIANT NOT.

This 27th day of November 2023,

 William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

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

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

Solicitor General of the United States

Room 5614, Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530–0001.

RYAN K. BUCHANAN – GABRIEL A. MENDEL

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY — ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

600 United States Courthouse

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

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

Email: gabriel.mendel@usdoj.gov

 

This 27th day of November 2023,

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

 

Fatal Shooting of Man with Mental Disabilities Who Called 911

There has been a fatal shooting of a young man with mental health problems who called 911 in Colorado.

This prompts reminders of when the Amarillo Police Department attempted to murder Hunter Tyler Schreck (many stories on this website about that tragedy).

Continue reading Fatal Shooting of Man with Mental Disabilities Who Called 911

Bill Windsor is taking a stand for Freedom of Speech – End of Day 36 of Tweet-Gate

number-36-fastdecals-200w 

Bill Windsor is taking a stand for Freedom of Speech at 7:30 pm Eastern Time on February 2, 2015 — Day 36 as a “wanted” man.

Freedom of speech is as fundamental a right as there is.  What these crooks are trying to do to Bill Windsor is beyong outrageous — put him in prison for life for sending a Tweet, sending an email to an attorney, and publishing the name of Sean Boushie who attempted to murder him and mercilessly cyberstalked him.

Bill Windsor thought the jig was up…

Continue reading Bill Windsor is taking a stand for Freedom of Speech – End of Day 36 of Tweet-Gate

Bill Windsor is battling Denial of Constitutional Rights – Day 35 of Tweet-Gate

 2015-01-10-wyoming-cheyenee-to-salt-lake-city-continental-divide-cropped-200w

Bill Windsor is still alive and exposing corruption at 9:25 am Eastern Time on February 1, 2015 — Day 35 as a “wanted” man.

Corrupt people in Montana and Texas are attempting to put Bill Windsor in prison for life for their crimes of denial of the most fundamental of Constitutional rights.  If you have not yet read the report of the five crimes that Bill Windsor is charged with, please read it.  And no, this isn’t a joke.

Happy Super Bowl Sunday and Happy February from sunny Florida…

Continue reading Bill Windsor is battling Denial of Constitutional Rights – Day 35 of Tweet-Gate

Plan presented to reform Alabama Constitution

marsh-del

Alabama State Senator Del Marsh’s (R-Anniston) has offered a resolution that could lead to reforming Alabama’s antiquated state Constitution.

He will propose a 16-member commission that will recommend changes to the Constitution on an article-by-article schedule that first looks at private corporations and banking, to be followed in 2012 by legislative powers and presentation.

Continue reading Plan presented to reform Alabama Constitution

Supreme Court Landmark Decision means Constitution is Void

void-200w

The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution of the United States on January 18, 2011.

I have been ill since mid-December, and I had my fourth eye surgery on Monday.  I am sorry that I have not updated the site for a month or so.  As soon as I can see again, I will write a daily blog.

This news has gotten a lot of coverage online.  It is amazing to me the people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about who say this is bogus and a hoax. 

Heaven help us!

The most important facts for everyone to know at this point are that our federal court system is corrupt from the bottom to the top.  I will exclude Sonia Sotomayor from the list for the moment, because I have reason to suspect that she would have done the right thing, but six justices is all it takes, and she was outvoted.

I will be on many radio shows in the next few weeks.  I’ll post the stations that I will be on when they give me all the information.

Continue reading Supreme Court Landmark Decision means Constitution is Void

Windsor files Petition for Rehearing with U.S. Supreme Court

On November 29, 2010, The United States Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by me.  It was a one-word ruling: DENIED.

The justices of our Supreme Court were told that the federal judges in Atlanta are corrupt and are violating the Constitution.  Nothing was filed against me, so my Petition was uncontroverted, uncontested.

On December 6, 2010, I sent a Petition for Rehearing to The Supreme Court, and I gave them notice of potential criminal action against them.

Continue reading Windsor files Petition for Rehearing with U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Thomas signals his vote on Landmark Decision on the Constitution

clarence_thomas_official-cropped 

The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution of the United States, and on November 19, Justice Thomas signaled how he will likely vote.

On a simple Application for a Stay (hold on proceedings in the lower courts) until The Supreme Court rules on the Petitions, Justice Thomas denied the Application.

Perhaps Justice Thomas had some valid reason for such an order, but his order consisted of one word: “denied.” 

Justice Thomas violated The Supreme Court’s own “law” in Corcoran v. Levenhagen by issuing an order with no explanation. 

I read this to indicate how Justice Thomas will vote.  I believe he is likely to vote to allow the federal judges to continue to commit crimes and violate our Constitutional rights.  I look forward to apologizing to him if he votes against the corruption!

The Supreme Court will consider these questions in three petitions filed by me::  

  1.  Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia? 
  2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?   
  3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches high above the courtooms and violating the Constitutional rights of tens of thousands of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts.  After finding nothing but corruption at the federal district courts and the court of appeals, I have put the justices of The United States Supreme Court on the hot seat.  By filing Petitions for Writs of Mandamus rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with the issue.  And the fundamental issue is whether the corruption extends all the way to the top.  Is The United States Supreme Court corrupt, too? 

If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of deceny, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts.  Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state.  Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want.  Our laws are meaningless.  Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.

The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year.  The accused judges have been given until December 15, 2010 to file their response.  That will be an interesting day.  My guess is that none of the judges will respond.  I believe that because I doubt that a federal judge wants to commit perjury in a filing with The Supreme Court.

 

News Coverage:

 

The story is now on 58,000 web pages.  Just do a search for “Supreme Court to issue Landmark Decision on the Constitution.” 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/united-states-supreme-court-will-soon/1396052/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20101113.CL01025&show_article=1

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2010/11/13/prnewswire201011130155PR_NEWS_USPR_____CL01025.html

http://humanrights.einnews.com/pr-news/227612-united-states-supreme-court-will-soon-issue-a-landmark-decision-on-the-validity-of-the-constitution

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS27117+13-Nov-2010+PRN20101113

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr-news/227612-united-states-supreme-court-will-soon-issue-a-landmark-decision-on-the-validity-of-the-constitution

http://www.worldnews.se/news/282911/united-states-supreme-court-will-soon-issue-a-landmark-decision-on-the-validity/

 

Supreme Court to issue Landmark Decision on the Constitution

district-of-columbia-washington-supreme-court-cameras-3500000-061031i0036-300wThe United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. 

“The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court are:

1.   Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia?

2.   Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?  

3.   Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

Windsor has been involved in a legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006.  Windsor was named as a defendant in a lawsuit in which the President of the Plaintiffs, Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery.  Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he said.  Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Christopher Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, Timothy P. Ruddy, and Robert J. Schul.  Glynn, Ruddy, and Schul admitted, under oath, that the charges against grandfather Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that Grandfather Windsor should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in the legal fees of the admitted liars of Maid of the Mist.  Grandfather Windsor appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and federal judges Joel F. Dubina, Frank M. Hull, and Peter T. Fay rubber-stamped Judge Orinda D. Evans’ ruling.  Grandfather Windsor then took his appeal to The United States Supreme Court where The Supreme Court said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration.

William M. Windsor filed a lawsuit against Judge Orina D. Evans and others in Atlanta federal court to have the actions of the courts set aside due to fraud upon the courts.  In an assortment of orders and appeals, Windsor charges that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Grandfather Windsor has discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches high above the courtooms and violating the Constitutional rights of tens of thousands of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts.  The dishonesty and corruption seems to be especially bad with those who represent themselves in court, a percentage estimated at over 35%.

After finding nothing but corruption at the federal district courts and the court of appeals, the grandfather of three has tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of The United States Supreme Court.  By filing Petitions for Writs of Mandamus rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with the issue.  And the fundamental issue is whether the corruption extends all the way to the top.  Is The United States Supreme Court corrupt, too?

Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: “I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States.  However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top.  My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and Congress.  I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues I have presented take up a lot of paper, but it can all be boiled down to one question:

‘Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop federal judges from functioning like common criminals?  If they care about decency, honesty, the law, the Constitution, and due process, they will act to stop it.  If they aren’t prepared to expose the corruption, they will deny the Application.'”

Windsor says: “If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of deceny, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts.  Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state.  Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want.  Our laws are meaningless.  Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.”

The Supreme Court should render its decision before the end of the year.  It’s one retired grandpa against the United States government.  May the best MAN win!

 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Disqualify Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Disqualify Judges of the Eleventh Circuit

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Disqualify Judge Orinda D. Evans

News Coverage:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/united-states-supreme-court-will-soon/1396052/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20101113.CL01025&show_article=1

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2010/11/13/prnewswire201011130155PR_NEWS_USPR_____CL01025.html

http://humanrights.einnews.com/pr-news/227612-united-states-supreme-court-will-soon-issue-a-landmark-decision-on-the-validity-of-the-constitution

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS27117+13-Nov-2010+PRN20101113

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr-news/227612-united-states-supreme-court-will-soon-issue-a-landmark-decision-on-the-validity-of-the-constitution

http://www.worldnews.se/news/282911/united-states-supreme-court-will-soon-issue-a-landmark-decision-on-the-validity/