CORRUPTION IN THE CASE OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR Archives

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

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. 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

Motion for Rehearing filed at U.S. Supreme Court

On October 26, 2023, a Motion for Rehearing filed at U.S. Supreme Court by Bill Windsor. It was filed by Bill Windsor.

From March 2006 to the present, federal judges have acted in a corrupt manner and have committed a variety of felonies to damage Bill Windsor.

On May 15, 2023, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition was filed with the United States Supreme Court by Pro-Se Windsor.

Each year, approximately 8,000 petitions are filed, and all but an average of 180 are automatically denied.

Jake called Windsor from the office of Justice Clarence Thomas to say the Petition was docketed and would be considered by all nine of the justices. Windsor thought this was just a courtesy extended to all 8,000, but Jake explained that Windsor’s was one of about 180 from the 8,000 or so submitted that were deemed warranted for full consideration.

Jake was unaware of any Pro-Se party who ever had their request granted by the Supreme Court. Windsor found there had been one and only one in 1971.

On July 20, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court Docket showed the Petition was to be considered on September 26, 2023. “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.”

On October 2, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court Docket indicates the Petition was denied. “Petition DENIED.”

SICKENING!!! Windsor has never received a letter. All the Clerk’s Office would finally say is that a letter was sent with one word: DENIED. There was no order issued.

There was no opinion issued, but there has to be. Here’s the process explained by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value.” In fact, the Court accepts approximately 180 of the more than 8,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

Of the cases remaining after thousands are disposed of by not meeting the requitred criteraa, the Justices screen the problems closely—by a process they explain freely in outline. They meet in a conference room as secret as any in government. The Court keeps private matters private. Reporters may speculate; but details of discussion are never disclosed, and the vote is revealed only when a decision is announced. No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as “doorkeeper,” sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door.

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority. Before each Justice is a copy of the day’s agenda. Each decides when he or she should refrain from taking any part in a case.

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants (and the almost never involved Pro-Se parties) are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Supreme Court historical documents state: “It acts only on matters of public record; it hears counsel’s arguments in public; all its orders and opinions are on the record; all materials presented to the Court for reaching its decisions are available to the public.

“All conference decisions are published. The disagreements among the Justices are fully exposed to the public in the written opinions, and on occasion the language of dissent becomes vehement.”

See the U.S. Supreme Court Docket for proof of the filings —

Windsor gave up on ever receiving this letter, and if he had received such an outrage, his motion for rehearing would be due the 27th. So, off it goes on October 26, 2023 for overnight delivery. Motion for Rehearing filed at U.S. Supreme Court by Bill Windsor

Windsor should be the second person in history and the first person in 52 years to have a Pro-Se Petition granted. There is no legal basis whatsoever for it to be denied. There is no legal basis for a petition that is considered to be denied with one word. There is no legal authority for a letter. There is no legal authority to conceal the vote.

The proper decision in this case should be a landmark decision for Pro-Se parties and those unable to afford to even be considered.

Windsor is demanding a grant of his Petition or an order with a full opinion and the votes of each of the nine justices. Windsor will file civil and criinal charges against all who voted against it. If this proves to be fraud by the Clerk’s Office, he will go after the Clerk.

William M. Windsor

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

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HEARS WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR’S PETITION

MIDNIGHT SEPTEMBER 26, 2023. THE DAY HAS COME. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HEARS WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR’S PETITION.

Nine of the most famous people in America will sit down at a special conference table in the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC today and discuss me and my case.

It is historic for a pro se party to have done this. A WIN will make it even more historic — first pro se party to prevail at the United States Supreme Court in 52 years, and only the second in HISTORY.

This should set precedents that will be cited from now on. It will help all pro se parties and the 63% who cannot afford an attorney.

I don’t know when their opinion will be announced. I plan to call Jake, the Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, at the end of the day. I’ll apologize for calling, and I’ll ask if he can tell me what happened.

Clerk of Court Melanie Reed is part of the Criminal Racketeering Operation in Ellis County Texas

Clerk of Court Melanie Reed is part of the Criminal Racketeering Operation in Ellis County Texas.

This happens all over the country. The court clerks know that the judges are committing crimes, and they do what they are told…committing violations of their oath, the rules, state civil statutes, state criminal statutes, and RICO statutes regarding organized crime.

Bill Windsor has suffered all types of abuse at the hands of Melanie Reed and her staff.

Continue reading Clerk of Court Melanie Reed is part of the Criminal Racketeering Operation in Ellis County Texas

Bill Windsor of Lawless America has filed criminal charges against Ellis County Texas Judge and District Attorney

criminal-charges-crime-scene-tape-lawanswers-com-au-200w

Bill Windsor of Lawless America has filed criminal charges against Ellis County Texas Judge Cindy Ermatinger, Ellis County Texas District Attorney Patrick Wilson, and Assistant Ellis County District Attorney Ann Montgomery-Moran.

Judge Cindy Ermatinger, District Attorney Patrick Wilson and Assistant DA Ann Montgomery-Moran have conspired to have Bill Windsor charged with a crime. They have done this using fraudulent, forged documents and by destroying documents.

But Bill Windsor happens to have the evidence to prove what they have done.

Continue reading Bill Windsor of Lawless America has filed criminal charges against Ellis County Texas Judge and District Attorney

Judicial Misconduct Complaint by Bill Windsor against Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana

judge-james-a-haynes-combatblog-net-cropped-judicial-misconduct-200w

Bill Windsor has filed a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana.

When you are standing trial on criminal charges, the last thing most people want to do is piss off the judge.

Bill Windsor isn’t “most people.” Read what he reported about the judge who will preside over his January 5, 2016 trial…

Continue reading Judicial Misconduct Complaint by Bill Windsor against Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana

Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana is Corrupt, Stupid, or Both

judge-james-a-haynes-combatblog-net-cropped-corrupt-stupid-both-200w

Is Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana Corrupt, Stupid, or Both?

On December 3, 2015, Bill Windsor filed a Motion to Dismiss one of his criminal charges due to expiration of the Statute of Limitations.

It is a very simple issue, a no-brainer, but what Judge James A. Haynes did on December 4, 2015 is a stupid execution of his corruption…

Continue reading Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana is Corrupt, Stupid, or Both

Who falsified physical evidence to charge William M. Windsor with a FELONY – Criminal charges filed

false-evidence-200w

Whodunnit? Who falsified physical evidence to charge William M. Windsor with a FELONY?

Criminal charges have been filed with the Missoula Police Department and will be filed with the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.

Someone manufactured a Tweet…

Continue reading Who falsified physical evidence to charge William M. Windsor with a FELONY – Criminal charges filed

Missoula Montana County Attorney Jennifer Clark allows man who attempted murder to attend deposition with his target wearing a concealed handgun and NRA T-shirt

Missoula Montana County Attorney Jennifer Clark and Missoula Police Department Detective Chris Shermer allowed Sean Boushie, who attempted to murder Bill Windsor, to attend his deposition with Bill wearing an NRA T-shirt and apparently a concealed handgun.

You can’t make this stuff up. It really happened…

Continue reading Missoula Montana County Attorney Jennifer Clark allows man who attempted murder to attend deposition with his target wearing a concealed handgun and NRA T-shirt

Missoula Montana County Attorney Kirsten Pabst has called Bill Windsor a Terrorist

terrorist001-thebottomlineat-blogspot-com-200w

Missoula Montana County Attorney Kirsten Pabst has called Bill Windsor a TERRORIST.

You can’t make this stuff up. It really happens…

Continue reading Missoula Montana County Attorney Kirsten Pabst has called Bill Windsor a Terrorist