HELP Needed Badly – Need a Media Entity to File a Motion to Lift Seal of Secret Documents hidden by Corrupt Judge Orinda D. Evans


Help Needed Badly!

There are two documents being held in secret in the Federal Courthouse in Atlanta.  They will prove fraud upon the court and corruption by Federal Judge Orinda D. Evans.

I need a media outlet from somewhere — anywhere — to file a motion to lift the seal on these documents….

The documents that were supposed to be placed under seal are no longer public.  I am confident that the documents filed under seal are bogus.

I have filed every imaginable type of action to get these documents made public, but the corrupt judges have committed one misdeed after another in keeping them hidden.

I am told that a media outlet will be able to get them released.  If that happens, I will have such undeniable proof of crimes that my original case will have to be reopened.

So, I need your help.  Please help me find a media outlet that will file this simple motion.  Please call any media people who you know.  Then call me at currently confidential or email bill@LawlessAmerica.com

Here is the information that would be incorporated into the Motion to Lift Seal:


  1. Windsor hereby moves for an Order compelling Judge Orinda D. Evans (“Judge Evans”) or a Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to produce documents for in camera inspection by this Court. This motion is pursuant to Rules 34 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Inherent Powers, and any other applicable statutes or rules. Judge Evans or a Clerk of the Court must be compelled to produce the documents filed under seal on February 15, 2007 in Doc.168 in Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE (“MIST-1”).
  2. The production of these documents will prove that there has been fraud upon the courts in the underlying actions. The documents should make it easy for this Court to take action necessary to protect Windsor’s Constitutional rights. These documents will make it easy for this Court to see that the Plaintiffs and Carl Hugo Anderson have dirty hands, and actions of the Eleventh Circuit were based upon fraud by Carl Hugo Anderson.
  3. The agreements between Plaintiffs and the Niagara Parks Commission and New York State Parks constitute the source from which Plaintiffs’ authority to conduct boat rides and to sell tickets emanates. The terms of Plaintiffs’ agreements with the Niagara Parks Commission and New York State Parks were discoverable for numerous reasons, including that these contracts contain the terms and conditions under which Plaintiffs can conduct the boat rides, terms and conditions relating to sales pricing, and any terms, conditions, and restrictions related to reselling of tickets through other sources (such as Defendants). Moreover, as Plaintiffs were contending that Defendants were overcharging customers by including a service charge on top of the price at which Defendants buy tickets, Defendants were entitled to know what terms in the contracts with the Niagara Parks Commission and New York State Parks may affect the contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Not only were the contracts and related documents discoverable but they would have clearly been admissible at trial.
  4. Plaintiffs, however, refused to produce any documents in response to document requests, contending that the information was “proprietary.” Numerous courts, including this Court, have held “[t]here is no absolute privilege for trade secrets and similar confidential information.” (Fed. Open Market Comm. v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 362 (1979); Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester, 780 F.2d 1017, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assoc., 665 F.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir. 1981).) Generalized assertions that information is “proprietary” will not suffice; rather, the party opposing discovery bears the burden of establishing that the information sought is in fact a “trade secret.” (See, e.g., Heat & Control, 780 F.2d at 1025.) Here, the Government of Ontario now has the contract on one of its web sites, and the State of New York has testified in a New York court that the contract is not confidential and will be provided to anyone who requests it.In addition, the President of the Plaintiffs has now filed the two documents in a New York Court with a sworn affidavit that the documents are true and correct.
  5. Windsor also subsequently learned that the other parties to the contracts have claimed that the contracts are not proprietary and should have been available to the public.
  6. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery of “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26 further provides that discovery is not limited to matters that will be admissible at trial, as long as the information sought “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
  7. At a hearing in chambers on February 2, 2007, Judge Evans required that the Plaintiffs produce the Niagara Parks Commission and the New York State Parks contracts under seal for an in camera inspection to determine if the documents contained information that would be relevant to the Defendants in this proceeding. [MIST-1 Doc.174.] Maid produced documents for the in camera inspection on February 15, 2007. [MIST-1 Doc.168.]
  8. These contracts were supposed to be the lease between Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company Limited (Maid Canada) and The Niagara Parks Commission (“NPC”) (the “Canadian Lease”) (Exhibit I) and the license contract between Maid of the Mist Corporation (“Maid US”) and New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”) (the “New York License”) (Exhibit J).
  9. On April 20, 2007 [MIST-1 Doc.209], Judge Evans ruled in response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel [MIST-1 Doc.135] that these documents were not relevant to the case. Judge Evans ruled that these contracts would not be produced: “The Court does not see how this information relates to any issue in the case, and agrees that it is proprietary.”
  10. Exhibit I hereto. The license contract (“New York License”) between New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”) and Plaintiff Maid of the Mist Corporation (Maid US) is Exhibit J hereto.
  11. Immediately upon reviewing these documents, it was apparent to Windsor that the documents did include information that was vitally relevant to the Defendants’ case. The documents include information that Maid did not have a valid basis for excluding from the discovery process. This information provides an explanation for the lies and deceit of Maid in this matter. This information establishes a motive for the wrongful actions of Maid. This information establishes that Maid had unclean hands. This information establishes additional proof of the fraud and dishonesty of Maid as these facts were concealed throughout the litigation.
  12. This new information will change the way a court looks at the underlying cases.
  13. The Plaintiffs concealed information because the Defendants would have conducted discovery with NPC and OPRHP that would have revealed that the Plaintiffs were in breach of contract, had obtained a trademark improperly in violation of a contract with NPC, and had made a material misrepresentation to obtain the New York License. A $1.3 billion dollar business was at risk, so Maid lied – again and again and again.


1.  Windsor seeks to have Judge Evans or a Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Georgia compelled to lift the seal on these documents from the MIST-1 Docket files and provide a copy to _________.

Under the common law, there is a well-established presumption of public access to judicial documents. (See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).) This public right of access is codified for bankruptcy cases in 11 U.S.C. § 107(a), which provides that all papers filed in a bankruptcy case are public records open to examination, except as specifically provided in the statute. (See Gitto Global Corp., 422 F.3d at 6-7; In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1999); William T. Bodah and Michelle M. Morgan, “Protective Orders in the Bankruptcy Court: The Congressional Mandate of Bankruptcy Code Section 107 and its Constitutional Implications,” 24 Hastings Const. L. Q. 67 (Fall 1996).) The statute provides for two exceptions to this broad right of public access: the court may (and, on motion of a party in interest, shall) (1) protect an entity with regard to certain commercial secrets and information, or (2) “protect a person with respect to scandalous or defamatory matter contained in a paper filed in a case under this title.” (Lawrence P. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 107.03[1][b] (15th ed. Rev. 2007).) “…in light of the public’s common law presumptive right of access to judicial documents, the court has the authority to lift a protective order or seal on documents in its files, even in the absence of a motion.


[A] district court can modify a protective order when a third party requests judicial documents after the parties have filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to settlement. (Gambale v. Deutsche Bank, 377 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2004).)


The existence of a common law right of access to judicial records is beyond dispute. (See Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1988); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 819 (3d Cir. 1981) (Criden I).) This Court has made it clear that our “strong presumption” of openness does not permit the routine closing of judicial records to the public. The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the heavy burden of showing that “the material is the kind of information that courts will protect” and that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” (Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen,733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984);  Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 02/23/1994).)


2.  There is absolutely no reason for this not to be done. There is no risk to anyone. The truth will come out. (Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 2006).)

Any individual competent to be a witness may be compelled to testify as to facts within his or her knowledge that are relevant to a matter before the court. (See Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 39 S. Ct. 468, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919); Standard Packaging Corp. v. Curwood, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 134 (N.D.Ill.1973).)


“…the Fourth Circuit pointed out in affirming the unsealing of the complaint in this case, there is an even stronger justification for public access to judicial records where, as here, the proceedings consist of matters involving the operation of government. (See Under Seal, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16117 at *6 (citing, in part, Smith v. United States Dist. Court, 956 F.2d 647, 650 (7th Cir. 1992)). See also F.T.C. v. Standard Fin. Management Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987) (stating that “the appropriateness of making court files accessible is accentuated in cases where the government is a party”).) Although special circumstances may justify preventing public exposure to such records, the party seeking to retain the seal must show “some significant interest that outweighs the presumption” of public access. (Under Seal, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16117 at *7 (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).” United States ex Rel. Doe v. X Corp., 862 F. Supp. 1502 (E.D.Va. 09/26/1994).)


In Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177-1178 (6th Cir. 1983), the Sixth Circuit concluded that this general right of public access to the courts, while not absolute, extended not just to criminal proceedings but to civil proceedings as well. The Sixth Circuit stated: “Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system. . . . [Basic] principles apply . . . to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained in court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.”


Earlier, in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a civil case, the Supreme Court treated as well-settled the principle that American courts recognize a general right to inspect and copy judicial records. The Court declined to specify the precise contours of this right of access, although the Court listed three examples of reasons for a court to exercise its supervisory authority over its files to deny access, lest court files become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as (1) gratifying spite or promoting scandal; (2) using court files “as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption”; and (3) using court files as “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. at 598 (citations omitted); (see also United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 569, 600 (6th Cir. 1987) (describing as “deep-rooted [the] American tradition of open judicial proceedings”); Applications of NBC, 828 F.2d 340, 347 (6th Cir. 1987) (“Openness in judicial proceedings promotes public confidence in the courts.”); Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 823 F.2d 159, 163 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[B]oth civil and criminal trials are presumptively open proceedings and open records are fundamental to our system of law.”).)


3.  Windsor asks that this Court lift the seal and compare the documents to the documents provided by Windsor.

. . . [W]e see no reason why the absence of a motion of a party to the litigation or some third party requesting that a seal or protective order be lifted should remove a federal court’s ability to monitor and modify its previous orders in exercise of its “supervisory power over its own records and files.”  (Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 141 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).)


The law is clear that it is within the Court’s discretion, sua sponte, to unseal the record. (See In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 192.) It is also beyond question that this Court retains the power to modify or lift seal orders that it has previously granted. (Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, at 784-785 (3d Cir. 1994).) Furthermore, because there exists an antecedent, extremely broad, right of access to judicial records and proceedings promoting “a pervasive common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 192, this Court intends to order the unsealing of the record.  (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Rite Aid Corp., 345 F.Supp.2d 497 (E.D.Pa. 11/23/2004).)


There is both a First Amendment and common-law right to inspect judicial records. (See United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985) (First Amendment).) While the public’s right to inspect judicial records may give way in certain circumstances to other, more pressing interests, such as the Government’s interest in maintaining confidentiality in order to successfully build a criminal case, “[s]uch circumstances will be rare . . . and the balance of interests must be struck with special care.” (Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45 (1984).)


“The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern,” (Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839, 98 S. Ct. 1535, 1541 (1978); (Romero v. Drummond (11th Cir. 2007).)


The district court, pursuant to its general discretionary powers, has the power to unseal previously sealed documents. Id. Once the seal is in place, upon a motion of an intervenor, the Court should determine if there continues to be “good cause” to keep the records sealed. Id.; (see Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 790 (3d Cir. 1994) (“The appropriate approach in considering motions to modify confidentiality orders is to use the same balancing test that is used in determining whether to grant such orders in the first instance . . . .”).)


4.  So, this is a simple deal. All this Court has to do is lift the seal.  Look at the first page and the signature pages, and if they match, flip through quickly to see that all of the pages are there. The first line of the contract between The Niagara Parks Commission and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company Limited should read “THIS INDENTURE OF LEASE made as of this 21st day of July 1989. The signature page is the 28th page (though unnumbered). The upper left hand corner of page 1 of the contract between the State of New York and Maid of the Mist Corporation should read: Niagara Reservation State Park, Maid of the Mist Corp., License #X000457 Final 08-20-02. The signature page is page 6. The entire document will be at least 52 pages.  The documents that are supposed to be filed under seal are attached hereto as Exhibits I and J.  

5.  In support of this motion, Windsor relies upon the entire docket in Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01543-WSD, No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE, No, 1:09-CV-02027-WSD, and the docket in Appeal No. 09-14735-DD.

WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests that the Court order as follows:

(1) grant this MOTION TO LIFT SEAL;

(2) order Judge Orinda D. Evans or the District Court Clerk or the Clerk of the Court of the Eleventh Circuit to lift the seal on documents filed under seal in Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE (“MIST-1”) Doc.168 and provbide a copy to _______;and

(3) grant such other and further relief as justice requires in association with this Motion.


Respectfully submitted, this ___ day of ________, 2011.

William M. 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.  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 of 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.


{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply