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

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…

William M. Windsor painstakingly detailed each relevant event that has taken place involving Judge James A. Haynes.

The Judicial Misconduct Complaint charges that Judge James A. Haynes has committed hundreds of violations of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is the overriding set of rules that judges are supposed to live by.  Each state has their own, and the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct is very good.  But the problem with judges in the United States is that they do whatever they want.  Laws and Rules mean nothing to them.

Montana has a Judicial Conduct Commission.  The members are all judges.  So, we have cats guarding the hen house.  It is rare that incompetent and corrupt judges are disciplined.

But, Bill Windsor has been so abused by Judge James A. Haynes that he had to file a complaint and get everything on the record.  Here is William Michael Windsor’s Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge James A. Haynes of Ravalli County Montana.  Here is the Statement of Facts that details what happened and when.

1. CANON 1: A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OFIMPROPRIETY. [Judge James A. Haynes is the poster child for impropriety.  He has demonstrated little integrity and a complete void of impartiality. Judge James A. Haynes does not uphold the integrity of the judiciary when he violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and criminal statutes.  The scribbled, unfiled, undocumented orders in the case; false statements in written orders; and the recordings and transcripts of the hearings will show that he has made a mockery of Canon 1.  Judge James A. Haynes has committed many violations of law, court rules, and provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (See Statement of Facts (“SOF”) 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.)  Judge James A. Haynes has failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on orders denying many motions in DC-14-509. (See SOF 19, 24, 30, 32, 33, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 76, 81, 83, 95, 98, 99.  These are violations of Montana law.  Judge James A. Haynes has refused to allow Bill Windsor to file approximately 22 motions in DC-14-509. (See SOF 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 81, 89, 96, 97, 98, 99.)  Key pre-trial motions that were approved in the Omnibus Memorandum were denied without explanation or blocked from filing.  These include a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, a Motion to Declare All Charges are Misdemeanors, Motion to Declare Lack of Probable Cause, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial, Motion to Dismiss due to Failure to State an Offense, and Motion to Dismiss due to Violations of Constitutional Rights. (See SOF 39, 43, 44, 50, 51, 56, 72, 81.)  The blanket ban of additional motions has denied Bill Windsor the right to file a Motion to Dismiss due to Unlawful Arrest, Motion to Suppress Evidence, and Second Motions in Limine.  Judge James A. Haynes denied any discovery whatsoever to Bill Windsor. (See SOF 29, 32, 33, 36, 47, 51, 81, and 83.)  The order of Judge James A. Haynes on the State’s Motions in Limine deny Bill Windsor the ability to present evidence that is essential to his defense and deny completely two of his planned defenses.  The ban of any further motions makes it impossible for Bill Windsor to raise these issues.  The bond restrictions placed on Bill Windsor by Judge James A. Haynes has him restricted by the terms of an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection for over 840 days and counting.  The October 29, 2015 order of Judge James A. Haynes acknowledges that the two remaining charges are unconstitutional, but he did not dismiss them.  The repeated denial of Bill Windsor’s Constitutional rights is an outrage.  Denying security in the courtroom and sanctioning the carrying of a concealed handgun in the courthouse and courtroom by Sean Boushie, the man who attempted to murder Bill Windsor is beyond comprehension.  The false statement made in orders and at hearings by Judge James A. Haynes is inexcusable.  Bill Windsor has been denied due process in about every way it is possible to deny due process.  Judge James A. Haynes actually told Bill Windsor at the November 20, 2015 Pre-Trial Conference that he would get due process when he appeals.]
2. Rule 1.1: A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct. [As detailed herein, Judge James A. Haynes has not complied with the law, and he has committed literally hundreds of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Surely this will be a record.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
3. Rule 1.2: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. [The record of Judge James A. Haynes in this case shows much of what is wrong with the judicial system. He is overtly prejudiced against Bill Windsor.  He exudes impropriety in an extremely cocky, rude manner.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
4. Rule 1.2 COMMENT [3]: Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary.  Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms. [Judge James A. Haynes has done many things that compromise or appear to compromise his independence, integrity, and impartiality as a judge.  Tearing up one of Bill Windsor’s filings at a hearing was notable as was calling Bill Windsor a whining child.  There are many more. See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
5. Rule 1.2 COMMENT [5]: Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code.  The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge. [Judge James A. Haynes has committed many violations of law, court rules, and provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
6. CANON 2: A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.  [When judges violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and criminal statutes, this demonstrates impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.  These are all violations of Canon 2.  When judges make rulings that make no sense based upon the facts or the law, Bill Windsor believes this shows the appearance of impropriety.  Judge James A. Haynes has done all of this. See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
7. Rule 2.2: A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. [Whenever a judge does not comply with the law, it is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  From Bill Windsor’s experience, Judge James A. Haynes ignores or violates the law as a consistent practice in regard to him.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
8. Rule 2.2 COMMENT [1]: To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded. [Judge James A. Haynes has done nothing but show that he is biased and absolutely unfair against Bill Windsor.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
9. Rule 2.2 COMMENT [2]: Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. [Judge James A. Haynes has done nothing but show that he is biased and absolutely unfair against William Michael Windsor.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
10. Rule 2.2 COMMENT [4]: A judge should manage the courtroom in a manner that provides all litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly adjudicated in accordance with the law. [Judge James A. Haynes has done nothing but show that he is biased and absolutely unfair against Bill Windsor.  He has even sanctioned letting Sean Boushie, the man who attempted to murder Bill Windsor, carry a concealed handgun in the courthouse.  The tape recording and transcript of the November 20, 2015 hearing in DC-14-509 will show comments what you will think could not possibly be true unless you hear them yourself.  See SOF 26, 52, 77, 94.]
11. Rule 2.2 COMMENT [5]: A judge may make reasonable accommodations to ensure self-represented litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly hears.  Steps that are permissible in ensuring a self-represented litigant’s right to be heard according to law include but are not limited to: liberally construing pleadings; providing brief information about the proceeding and evidentiary and foundational requirements; modifying the traditional order of taking evidence; attempting to make legal concepts understandable; explaining the basis for a ruling; and making referrals to any resources available to assist the litigant in preparation of the case.  Self-represented litigants are still required to comply with the same substantive law and procedural requirements as represented litigants. [Judge James A. Haynes has done nothing but deny even normal treatment of Bill Windsor.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
12. Rule 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment. [Judge James A. Haynes has demonstrated his bias and prejudice repeatedly in three cases involving Bill Windsor.  Not only has he not made reasonable accommodations, he violates the rules and the law on a regular basis.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
13. Rule 2.3(A): A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice. [When a judge demonstrates bias or prejudice, it is a violation of this Canon.  Judges should recuse themselves when they have a bias or a prejudice, but they don’t.  Judge James A. Haynes has a prejudice against pro se parties, bias in favor of fellow members of the Bar, and a prejudice against people like Bill Windsor who are attempting to expose corrupt judicial officials.  William M. Windsor has evidence that he has treated Crystal Cox and Michael Spreadbury in a similar prejudiced manner.   See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
14. Rule 2.3(B): A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage inharassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so. [Judge James A. Haynes has demonstrated an overwhelming bias against Bill Windsor for his political beliefs.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
15. Rule 2.3(C): A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others. [Judge James A. Haynes has allowed the State to demonstrate an overwhelming prejudice against Bill Windsor for his political beliefs. See SOF 13, 14.]
16. Rule 2.3(C) COMMENT [1]: A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. [The actions of Judge James A. Haynes have made DC-14-509 a totally unfair criminal proceeding, and he has made a joke of the judiciary.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
17. Rule 2.3(C) COMMENT [2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include, but are not limited to, epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics.  Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice.  A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased. [Judge James A. Haynes has negatively stereotyped Bill Windsor.  At the November 20, 2015 hearing, he said: “People like you can beat a polygraph.”  Tearing up one of Bill Windsor’s filings at a hearing while berating him was quite the manifestation.  Repeatedly indicating that William Michael Windsor is a liar, when he is not, at hearings and in orders and scribbles clearly shows his prejudice and animosity.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
18. Rule 2.3(C) COMMENT [3]: Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation. [Judge James A. Hayne’s verbal conduct has shown extreme hostility toward Bill Windsor for his efforts to expose corruption in the Montana judiciary and at the University of Montana. See SOF 26, 52, 77, 94.]
19. Rule 2.4(B): A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. [Judge James A. Haynes has demonstrated an overwhelming prejudice against Bill Windsor for his political beliefs.  He is out to interfere with Bill Windsor’s efforts to expose Judge John W. Larson, other Montana judges, and himself for being corrupt.  Judge James A. Haynes has allowed his relationship with Judge John W. Larson to influence his conduct and judgment.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
20. Rule 2.4(B) COMMENT [1]: An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family.  Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.  [As detailed herein, Judge James A. Haynes has not decided cases according to the facts or the law. An elementary school student could read the law and know that orders by the judge do not comply with the very clear statutes.  If Judge James A. Haynes is that stupid, he has no business being a judge.  And if Judge James A. Haynes is that corrupt, he has no business being a judge.  Judge James A. Haynes has no business being a judge.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
21. Rule 2.5: A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently. [Judge James A. Haynes’ words and actions prove that he has performed in an incompetent manner.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
22. Rule 2.6(A): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to Bill Windsor’s experience is that judges have routinely denied his most fundamental rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Judge James A. Haynes certainly has.  Bill Windsor has been repeatedly denied the right to be heard.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
23. Rule 2.6 COMMENT [1]: The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice.  Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.  Steps judges may consider in facilitating the right to be heard include, but are not limited to: (1) providing brief information about the proceeding and evidentiary and foundational requirements; (2) asking neutral questions to elicit or clarify information; (3) modifying the traditional order of taking evidence; (4) refraining from using legal jargon; (5) explaining the basis for a ruling; and (6) making referrals to any resources available to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case. [Judge James A. Haynes has repeatedly denied Bill Windsor’s right to be heard.  He has not explained the basis for his rulings and has done nothing to facilitate that right.  He has rarely even provided the statutorily-required findings of fact and conclusions of law on his rulings. See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
24. Rule 2.8(A): A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court. [Judge James A. Haynes allows a would-be-killer, Sean Boushie, to attend every hearing when it is known that he carries a concealed handgun.  Judge James A. Haynes refused to provide courtroom security; at the hearing of November 20, 2015, he told Bill Windsor that he could hire his own security for the courtroom. See SOF 94.]
25. Rule 2.8(B): A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similarconduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control. [Judge James A. Haynes has been impatient, undignified, and totally rude to Bill Windsor at all times.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
26. Rule 2.8 COMMENT [1]: The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty imposed in Rule 2.5 to dispose promptly of the business of the court.  Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate. [Judge James A. Haynes is rude. He has never shown Bill Windsor one iota of courtesy. See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
27. Rule 2.10(A): A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider exparte communications. [Judge James A. Haynes has clearly had ex parte communications.  At the November 20, 2015 hearing, he indicated that Bill Windsor has money, has friends, and other statements that indicated he has had ex parte communications.  Bill Windsor believes Judge James A. Haynes and the Missoula County Attorney’s Office had discussions about trying to get William Michael Windsor to accept a settlement offer.  Bill Windsor heard one ex parte conversation between Judge James A. Haynes and prosecuting attorney Jennifer Clark as he sat in a holding cell just off the courtroom.]
28. Rule 2.10(B): If a judge receives an ex parte communication having a potentially significant bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the content of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.  If such communication is in writing, a copy of it shall be made available to the parties and retained. [Judge James A. Haynes has not disclosed any of the ex parte communications that he has had.]
29. Rule 2.10(C): A judge shall not investigate matters independently. [Judge James A. Haynes has investigated matters independently. See SOF 94.]
30. Rule 2.10 COMMENT [4]: A judge must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been substituted or disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have trial or appellate jurisdiction over the matter. [Judge James A. Haynes has undoubtedly held ex parte discussions with other judges.  Proving it will be impossible.]
31. Rule 2.11: A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. [Judge James A. Haynes has made public statements at hearings in DC-14-509 that show he is totally prejudiced against Bill Windsor.  Fairness is not an issue as there is none.  Judge James A. Haynes has lied about Bill Windsor at hearings and in “orders.” See SOF 26, 52, 77, 94.]
32. Rule 2.11 COMMENT [1]: This Rule’s restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. [The words and actions of Judge James A. Haynes prove a complete lack of independence, integrity, or impartiality.  See SOF 26, 52, 77, 94.]
33. Rule 2.12(A): A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances (d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. [Judges refuse to recuse themselves when their impartiality would be questioned by reasonable people.  Judges have made recusal a joke.  Judge James A. Haynes has been named as a witness in DC-14-509, and he has refused to disqualify himself.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
34. Rule 2.12(A)(5)(d): The judge previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court. [Judge James A. Haynes previously presided as judge in three other related matters. See SOF 1, 18, 24, 54.]
35. Rule 2.12 Comment [1]: Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) apply.  [The impartiality of Judge James A. Haynes is questioned by anyone honest who reads what he has done.  According to this Rule, HE IS DISQUALIFIED, but he continues to run a Kangaroo Court.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
36. Rule 2.12 Comment [2]: A judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters inwhich disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed. [Disqualification of Judge James A. Haynes was required, and he did nothing.  Bill Windsor filed two motions.  He denied one without even reading it.  He failed to even comment on the second one.  See SOF 1, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.]
37. Rule 2.16(A): A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. [In addition to being violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the failure to report felonies to law enforcement is a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 4.  Judge James A. Haynes was informed of the misconduct of Justice of the Peace Jim Bailey, Judges Sam Warren, Karen Townsend, and John W. Larson, and he did nothing.  See SOF 1, 3, 7, 14, 19, 44, 67, 69, 72, 84, 85, 88, 90, 93, and the dockets in OP-2013-000198, DV-13-969, DR-14-503, and DC-14-509.]
38. Rule 2.16(B): A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. [Just as judges ignore the wrongdoing of fellow judges, they ignore the violations of attorneys.  [Judge James A. Haynes was informed of violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Deputy Missoula County Attorney Jennifer Clark, and he did nothing.]
39. Rule 2.16(C): A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action. [Judge James A. Haynes received information from Bill Windsor of the substantial likelihood of misconduct of Justice of the Peace Jim Bailey, Judges Sam Warren, Karen Townsend, and John W. Larson, and he did nothing.  See SOF 1, 3, 7, 14, 19, 44, 67, 69, 72, 84, 85, 88, 90, 93, and the dockets in OP-2013-000198, DV-13-969, DR-14-503, and DC-14-509.]
40. Rule 2.16(D): A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.
41. Rule 2.16 COMMENT [1]: Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation.  Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system.  This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent. [Judge James A. Haynes was informed of the misconduct of Justice of the Peace Jim Bailey, Judges Sam Warren, Karen Townsend, and John W. Larson, and he did nothing.  See SOF 1, 3, 7, 14, 19, 44, 67, 69, 72, 84, 85, 88, 90, 93, and the dockets in OP-2013-000198, DV-13-969, DR-14-503, and DC-14-509.]
42. Rule 2.16 COMMENT [2]: A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct, but receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C) and (D).  Appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who may have violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or Similarly, actions to be taken in response to information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may include, but are not limited to, communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. [Judge James A. Haynes was informed of the misconduct of Justice of the Peace Jim Bailey, Judges Sam Warren, Karen Townsend, and John W. Larson, and he did nothing.  See SOF 1, 3, 7, 14, 19, 44, 67, 69, 72, 84, 85, 88, 90, 93, and the dockets in OP-2013-000198, DV-13-969, DR-14-503, and DC-14-509.]

 

 

---

Bill Windsor will be doing a special filming after the trial in Missoula.  He want sto try to get as many victims as possible to come to the trial.  Then a group session will be filmed followed by filming of individual stories.  So, if you are in Montana or have friends there, please ask them to participate.  January 5-6, 2016.

Bill Windsor has been suspended from Facebook for 30 days for publishing something that he didn’t publish.  So, for all the news, come here. 

Image copyright Friends of Bill Windsor

---

For a quick update on Bill Windsor’s saga and upcoming trial, see this summary on LawlessAmerica.com.

If you want to reach Bill Windsor, his home address is 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, SD 57108.  That mail gets forwarded to him once a week.  His email is Pro-Se-1@outlook.comThis. His phone is currently confidential, but it is not answered; messages are checked by dialing in to Verizon from a state far, far away, and Bill receives an email with the name, number, and one sentence summary of each message.

For the Lawless America videos, see www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica.  Bill Windsor’s Facebook page is www.facebook.com/billwindsor1  Bill Windsor’s Twitter account is www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica.  And click here for the Lawless America Facebook page that has just magically reappeared.

{jcomments on}

---

William M. Windsor

---

 FABOJ