I’ve discovered massive wrongdoing in Texas with fraudulent felony indictments issued on a regular basis. I’m William M. Windsor. I’m not an attorney. I cannot give legal advice, but I do share my experience representing myself as a pro se party, and I’m investigating unthinkable fraud and wrongdoing in Texas for magazine articles and a documentary film. Check your county and state!
I’ve been researching corruption in Ellis County Texas. I have personal exprience of the corruption there. Then I was contacted by Barbara Cochran, the mother of John Eric Armstrong, a man unlawfully held in solitary confinement for 453 days. I began researching his case. Then I contacted other prisoners and their attorneys, and I started to research other prisoners.
I’ve discovered what I perceive to be routine violations of the Texas statutes by the Ellis County District Attorney and Clerk of the District Court. These are not mistakes. These are intentional violations, and they may date back to 1971. I think Ellis County needs to rent limos for the 504 prisoners and take them wherever they want to go. On second thought,the State needs to buy a large fleet of limos because I suspect similar wrongdoing all across the State.
I suggest that every Ellis County Texas prisoner ask their attorney or Public Pretender to file a Motion to Quash Indictment and/or a Motion to Compel Disclosure of Grand Jury Witnesses.
Now, let me explain how I, a non-attorney, came to this conclusion. I’m using John Eric Armstrong as my example as it is the case I have researched by far the most.
First, I review the Docket. (Find your Docket by doing an Internet search for “(your-county-name) County Court Clerk.” [Link to Ellis County District Court Clerk’s website.] Bookmark your Clerk’s page as you will probably need it again. Click on the link to access the Online Records Search. Login, and then search by Case number or Name. Then click to View Filings. The list should appear in chronological order. Identify any Indictment-related listings, and print them. Print the entire Docket. (If your county makes this impossible, like Melanie Reed and the crooks in Ellis County, photograph it.) [I photograph the docket every day so I have proof when docket entites are changed or removed.]
Second, I carefully study the relevant documents(s). In this case, it’s the Docket entry titled “Indictment.” I close my door, turn off the TV and the computer screen, and I read the document at least twice initially. I need to see the tree and not be distracted by the forest or outside factors.
Third, I identify and study the statute charged by the Indictment. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 21.02 explains the REQUISITES OF AN INDICTMENT. A Texas indictment shall be deemed sufficient (since 1966) if it has the following:
“Art. 21.02. REQUISITES OF AN INDICTMENT. An indictment shall be deemed sufficient if it has the following requisites:
“1. It shall commence, ‘In the name and by authority of The State of Texas’.
“2. It must appear that the same was presented in the district court of the county where the grand jury is in session.
“3. It must appear to be the act of a grand jury of the proper county.
“4. It must contain the name of the accused, or state that his name is unknown and give a reasonably accurate description of him.
“5. It must show that the place where the offense was committed is within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is presented.
“6. The time mentioned must be some date anterior to the presentment of the indictment, and not so remote that the prosecution of the offense is barred by limitation.
“7. The offense must be set forth in plain and intelligible words.
“8. The indictment must conclude, ‘Against the peace and dignity of the State’.
“9. It shall be signed officially by the foreman of the grand jury.
“Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.”
Fourth, I compare the document from the docket with the statute.
Here’s what I see when I consider the tree, not the forest.
When you disregard the header that was added by the Court Clerk (with no legal authority anywhere that I can find) after the Purported Indictment was received by the Ellis County Clerk of Court’s office, the Purported Indictment does not indicate any offense or statute, and it does not use the word Stalking, which is what Ellis County claims is the charge against John Eric Armstrong!
The Header on the Purported Indictment says it is for the Offense of Stalking, Offense Code 123160014. This Header is NOT part of the Purported Indictment. (Notice that I am now referring to the document as “Purported Indictment.” This is because this is not the document delivered by the Ellis County Grand Jury.
The Purported Indictment is not even titled “INDICTMENT.” Note the first page of the Travis County Texas Indictment for Rick Perry. It is clearly titled INDICTMENT.
The Purported Indictment does not identify JOHN ERIC ARMSTRONG as a Defendant. The header shows “CO-DEFENDANTS,” but it is blank.
This Purported Indictment must be quashed. It must be stricken from the Record.
As required by Paragraph 1 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 21.02, the Actual Purported Indictment commences with:
“In the name and by authority of The State of Texas.”
Merriam-Webster defines “commence” as “begin.” So, the Header information did not apply and is not part of the indictment. The Actual Purported Indictment begins with:“In the name and by authority of The State of Texas.”
I’ve written many times that we often cannot see the tree for the forest. The tree we needed to see was there all along, but the criminals of Ellis County Texas disguised it from us. When dealing with anyone in law enforcement or the judicial system, assume they are criminals. Don’t believe a thing they say. They are the screwers, and you are the screwee.
Texas statutes specifically define these terms:Sec. 311.016:
“MAY,” “SHALL,” “MUST,” ETC. The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:
(1) “May” creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.
(2) “Shall” imposes a duty.
The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University defines “duty” as “Requirement to perform some conduct required by law, custom, morality, or personal commitment.”
This has been the law in Texas since May 23, 1997.
Based upon my careful review of the statutes and the legislative history, I believe any Texas indictment for the last 24 years that does not contain an endorsement of the names of the witnesses violates the statutes and must be considered void. Line up the limos! There is more. Stay tuned for Part 2…
I’m not an attorney. I cannot give legal advice, and I don’t give legal advice. I do share my experience representing myself as a pro se party in court over the last 30 years, and I am researching the law for articles and a documentary film about corruption in Texas.
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.