Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Orinda D. Evans


I have filed two judicial misconduct complaints against Judge Orinda D. Evans. 

Judge Evans has a reputation for twisting the law and the facts to decide how she wants to decide without regard for the law or what’s right.

She did this and a lot more in my case.¬† She committed perjury and obstruction of justice — committed many criminal acts.¬† She did it knowingly because she felt she could get away with it.

She has gotten away with it for as long as 30 years as a federal judge.

The first complaint was ignored, and the second one probably will be as well.

I have stated under oath that Judge Orinda D. Evans is as dishonest and corrupt as they come.

Here is my initial complaint against Judge Evans:

Judicial Misconduct Complaint

Judge Orinda D. Evans

In Civil Action Number 1:06-CV-0714-ODE, Judge Orinda D. Evans is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.  She treated the Defendants in a hostile manner.  She violated the Code of Conduct.  She had improper motives.  This misconduct took place between March 2005 and October 2008.

Judge Evans violated these Canons:

Canon 1 — A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.


Canon 2 — A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities¬† – A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.


Canon 3 — A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently – A judge should be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law.


  1. Judge Evans concealed material evidence that should have been provided to the Defendants.¬† Judge Evans received two contracts for an in camera inspection in February 2007.¬† Judge Evans did not respond to the Defendants until well after discovery had closed.¬† Judge Evans claimed the contracts were not relevant to the case, but that was false.¬† The Plaintiffs claimed these documents were √Ę‚ā¨Ňďirrelevant, immaterial, ill-defined, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.√Ę‚ā¨¬Ě¬† The Defendants have now obtained the contracts through a FOI request, so the Defendants know that the contracts contained extremely important information.¬† These documents are Docket #168, and the production requirement is noted in Docket # 174 – Hearing of February 2, 2007.¬† The importance of these documents is addressed in the First Declaration of William M. Windsor and Exhibits1 and 2 thereto dated April 24, 2009 and filed with a Motion to Reopen the Case.
  2. Judge Evans ignored fraud, misrepresentation, and perjury by the Plaintiffs. ¬†The Defendants can show that the Plaintiffs committed fraud, misrepresentation, and perjury, and Plaintiffs√Ę‚ā¨‚ĄĘ attorneys participated knowingly in these wrongs and suborned perjury throughout the case.¬† Windsor called fraud, misrepresentation, and perjury, to the attention of Judge Evans at the hearing in chambers on February 2, 2007, but Judge Evans did nothing about it.¬† The transcript of this hearing is Docket # 174.¬† Windsor advised Judge Evans that the Plaintiffs had lied and committed perjury hundreds of times and had filed numerous false sworn pleadings.¬† The total count of proven lies or statements Windsor believes are lies is over 400.¬† These are detailed by affidavit, deposition, or hearing testimony in the 28 exhibits to the Third declaration of William M. Windsor filed April 24, 2009 as part of a Motion to Reopen Case.¬† Judge Evans ignored this and chose to believe the Plaintiffs without considering any proof.¬† Rule 11 violations are detailed in Exhibit 23 to the Third Declaration of William M. Windsor filed April 24, 2009 as well as in all the exhibits to that declaration.
  3. The various rulings of Judge Evans in this case were not fair or logical and showed a partiality to the Plaintiffs from the very beginning.  There are 416 sentences in this Order Granting Summary Judgment.  TWO HUNDRED AND TEN (210) of the 416 are false or incorrect.  Space limitations here make it impossible to cite the facts, but Windsor can provide an investigator with a precise explanation using the Docket and the April 24, 2009 filings with the Court.  The void of impartiality is detailed in the Motion to Recuse with the Second Declaration of William M. Windsor and the 23 exhibits attached thereto and filed April 24, 2009.  The impartiality of Judge Evans can definitely be questioned.  Judge Evans demonstrated a personal bias concerning Windsor and the Defendants.  Judge Evans concealed relevant information from the Defendants.  Judge Evans denied the Defendants the ability to obtain needed discovery.  The Defendants needed discovery of various types, but the Court abused the Defendants by denying these requests.  Then Judge Evans granted Summary Judgment against Windsor and the Defendants using the testimony and evidence of people who never appeared for depositions after she indicated on February 2, 2007 that she would not allow affidavits or testimony at trial from those people.  Judge Evans regularly invented facts that did not exist.
  4. The constitutional rights of the Defendants were violated repeatedly in this lawsuit.¬† The Defendants were denied the most basic discovery — never even given the names and contact information for employee witnesses.¬† Judge Evans denied the ability of the Defendants to take deposition testimony of any of the people directly involved with customers or any customers.¬† Judge Evans denied the defendants the time needed to go through the Hague Convention to take the depositions of Canadian employees of the Plaintiffs who were important to the Defendants√Ę‚ā¨‚ĄĘ case.¬† Judge Evans repeatedly denied discovery requests that were essential to the Defendants√Ę‚ā¨‚ĄĘ defense and in support of the Defendants√Ę‚ā¨‚ĄĘ case.¬† There was not even a hint of fairness or impartiality in her rulings as can be seen by reviewing the entire Docket.¬† Discovery Abuse is detailed in Exhibit 16 to the Second Declaration of William M. Windsor filed April 24, 2009.
  5. Judge Evans denied Windsor, a pro se party, the ability to conduct a 30(b)(6) examination of the Plaintiffs.  [Docket # 184.]
  6. Judge Evans violated the law and manufactured her own law and facts to rule against the Defendants.  Judge Evans included alleged facts in her orders that were not even presented by the Plaintiffs or Defendants.  Judge Evans considered testimony and proof in her orders that she stated would not be considered.  Judge Evans considered affidavits that should not have been considered based upon the Rules and based upon her rulings.  In her Summary Judgment Order, 210 of the 426 sentences in the Order are false or incorrect.  These are detailed in Exhibit 22 to the Third declaration of William M. Windsor filed April 24, 2009 as part of the Motion to Reopen Case.
  7. The ruling in this case could establish a major number of precedents that change important laws in Georgia.¬† As the Defendants see it, no one can legitimately fight a lawsuit filed against them without expecting to pay all legal fees if they lose.¬† Tortious interference does not require damages.¬† Tortious interference does not have to meet the tests that have been established in Georgia.¬† Sworn complaints do not have to have a shred of truth; there are no penalties for lying hundreds of times under oath.¬† There are no penalties for discovery abuse; you can tamper with witnesses, conceal documents, alter documents, refuse to produce documents, and produce your important documents after discovery has closed.¬† You do not have to produce your witnesses for depositions, but you can then use affidavits from them and deny the opposing party the ability to cross-examine.¬† The legal basis for counterclaims is irrelevant, and the courts don’t have to even deal with those issues.¬† Slander is acceptable.¬† No one is allowed to make a factual complaint to the Better Business Bureau.¬† Courts may stop people from doing perfectly legal things.¬† Courts do not have to go by the law.¬† Courts do not have to consider the facts.¬† Fact issues are no longer issues for a jury to consider; judges are allowed to handle jury trials themselves without involving actual jurors.¬† The Georgia ticket broker laws are null and void, and no¬†company or individual may ever sell a ticket that they acquired from someone else.¬†¬†Appeals have been eliminated as the law and the facts are not going to be considered by the Court of Appeals.
  8. The misconduct of Judge Evans is detailed in the Motion to Recuse filed by William M. Windsor on April 24, 2009 and the declaration and exhibits attached thereto, and in the Motion to Reopen Case filed by William M. Windsor on April 24, 2009 and the declarations and exhibits attached thereto.

William M. Windsor


This Complaint was denied by Judge J.L. Edmondson who claimed there was no evidence of wrongdoing.  So, I had to Petition for further review.

A year later, I filed yet another complaint — Second Judicial Misconduct Complaint Against Judge Orinda D. Evans.

Bill 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.  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 judicial corruption, government corruption, law enforcement corruption, attorney wrongdoing/corruption, and political 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. 





Copyright, 2022, Lawless America


Leave a Reply