Pro-Se Podcast with Bill Windsor begins Friday the 13th

Pro-Se Podcast Friday the 13th

Pro-Se Podcast with Bill Windsor begins Friday the 13th of October 2023.

Please Join Bill Windsor for The Pro-Se Podcast.

The Pro-Se Podcast will focus on building an association to compete with the American Bar Association.  63% of the people in court today are not represented by attorneys or members of the BAR, and they usually lose.  They suffer a complete deprivation of Constitutional rights.
Bill Windsor spent 16 years compiling a book of the Top Secret Rules used by judges to inflict corruption.  It’s titled Benchbook for U.S. Judges – Corruption Edition. We need to build an association to compete.  It is our best hope to save America.

Register at

All you need is a cellphone or microphone for your PC.  If you have a webcam, you also have the option to participate by video.
If you aren’t already registered with Talkshoe, it’s simple and FREE here — REGISTER AT TALKSHOE.
Bill Windsor will host and operate the control panel.  At the start, he will do an introduction.  He will explain a brief history of the American Bar Association and provide statistics to show the numbers we need to compete.
Then Bill will open the microphones of those who “raise their hand” and ask to speak. unless they are known scumbags.
We will discuss why this could be an excellent option for beating corruption in our courts.
We will discuss the best day and time and discuss realistic ways we can amass big numbers of members.
We will discuss names.  We will discuss website options.
Membership in this new association of Pro-Se litigants does have a fee — one penny.
We will discuss less expensive ways for people to pay their penny to become a member of this new association to compete with the BAR Association.
If you buy the book that identifies the Corruption Rules used by corrupt judges and lawyers, email Bill Windsor at to inform Bill that you have done so, and he will donate a penny to make you a member.
We will discuss connections — your connections with groups. Post this on the Groups you are a member of, and ask the Admins to post this and encourage every member to participate.
The Pro-Se Podcast will be held each week.

Login at, or Dial: 605-562-0444 – Show ID: 7863630.

Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Please send Bill Windsor an email to so he can put you on his email list and won’t waste time hunting for it.


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.

Bill Windsor has published BENCHBOOK for U.S. JUDGES – Corruption Edition

Benchbook for U.S. Judges - Corruption Edition


Order your copy at Amazon.

Please buy (only $9.99), and please SHARE this with everyone you know. I make $3.32 per sale, and that money will be used to issue a national news release on my historic case with the United States Supreme Court that will be heard by the nine justices on September 26, 2023
I humbly believe this book has the potential to make the greatest impact ever made in the battle against judicial corruption.
BENCHBOOK for U.S. JUDGES: Corruption Edition is a statement of the Rules used by judges when they feel Corruption is needed.
This is a TOP SECRET set of Rules that is unlawful and is carefully guarded by judges nationwide.
There are 30 Corruption Rules explained:

Rule #1: LIE;  Rule #2: Lie Some More;  Rule #3: Deny Constitutional Rights;  Rule #4: Ignore the Law;  Rule #5: Cite Invalid Law;  Rule #6: Ignore the Facts;  Rule #7: Ignore Issues;  Rule #8: Say Nothing in Orders;  Rule #9: Dismiss Cases or Grant Summary Judgment; Rule #10: Refuse to Disqualify Yourself;  Rule #11: Violate Your Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct;  Rule #12: Conceal Evidence;  Rule #13: Tamper with Evidence;  Rule #14: Order Monetary Sanctions Against Parties You Want to Damage;  Rule #15: Violate and Ignore the Rules of Civil Procedure;  Rule #16: Automatically Rule against Certain Classes of People;  Rule #17: Order Monetary Sanctions Against Parties You Want to Sanction;  Rule #18: Conspire with Fellow Judges and Judicial Employees;  Rule #19: Allow Perjury;  Rule #20: Deny Hearings;  Rule #21: Practice Simulated Litigation;  Rule #22: Deny Jury Trials;  Rule #23: Don’t Publish Improper Orders;  Rule #24: Deny Right to Obtain Discovery;  Rule #25: Deny Right to File Actions;  Rule #26: Order a Disfavored Party to Appear in Person When You Know They Can’t;  Rule #27: Bring in a Judge from Another County to Serve as Your Executioner;  Rule #28: Communicate with Court Employees, Attorneys, Judges, Law Enforcement, Government Agencies, and Others Unlawfully;  Rule #29: Deny In Forma Pauperis Status;  Rule #30: Simply Do Nothing.

Key Corruption Terms are defined: The Favored Party, The Designated Loser, The Naughty List.
Annotations have been provided. These are used primarily to inform litigants of ways to deal with these secret rules.

Ku Klux Klan Act – 42 USC 1983 – Sue for Violation of Civil Rights

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 200w

This is an article I published in 2010.  There is a lot of excellent information about a federal lawsuit against the City of Amarillo and 50 criminals and for Ellis County and a boatload of criminals from Ellis County that John Eric Armstrong is expected to file Here’s the Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit. It is pursuant to The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.  You may know it as 42 U.S.C. 1983.  

I copied it from




Hilyard, Bogan, Palmer & Lockeby, P.A.

105 East Robinson Street, Suite 201

Orlando, Florida 32801

Tel. (407) 425-4251


42 u s c 1983 n 640w


42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as “section 1983” provides:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.  For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added).

Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act” because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan.  While the existing law protected all citizens in theory, its protection in practice was unavailable to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so.[1] The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability.[2]

The number of cases that have been brought under section 1983 has dramatically increased since 1961 when the Supreme Court decided Monroe v. Pape.[3] In Monroe, the Supreme Court held that a police officer was acting “under color of state law” even though his actions violated state law.[4] This was the first case in which the Supreme Court allowed liability to attach where a government official acted outside the scope of the authority granted to him by state law.  Since Monroe v. Pape was decided, an extensive body of law has developed to govern section 1983 claims.  This article is intended to provide an overview of that extensive body of law, and will include seminal precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals–a comprehensive study of all law related to section 1983 is beyond the scope of this article.


(i)            “Every person . . .”

Only “persons” under the statute are subject to liability.[5] A state is not a person subject to suit under section 1983,[6] but a state officer can be sued in his official capacity for prospective or injunctive relief[7] despite the fact that an suit against a government official in his official capacity represents nothing more than a suit against the government entity itself![8] Despite this logical inconsistency, the current state of the law is that a state may not be sued for damages, but may be sued for declaratory or injunctive relief.  Municipalities and local governments are persons subject to suit for damages and prospective relief,[9] but the United States Government is not.[10] Individual employees of federal,[11] state[12] and local[13] government may be sued in their individual capacities[14] for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief.

While the determination of who is a “person” is a matter of federal statutory interpretation, the matter of who has the capacity to be sued is determined by the law of the forum state.[15] Likewise, the law of the forum is to be applied in actions under section 1983 where the law of section 1983 provides no guidance.[16]

(ii)            “. . . who under color of [state law][17] . . .”

The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law,”[18] and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state.[19] A private actor may also act under color of state law under certain circumstances.[20] For example, it has been held that a physician who contracts with the state to provide medical care to inmates acts under the color of state law.[21] For all practical purposes, the “color of state law” requirement is identical to the “state action” prerequisite to constitutional liability.[22]

(iii)            “. . . subjects or causes to be subjected . . .”

Section 1983 does not impose a state of mind requirement independent of the underlying basis for liability,[23] but there must be a causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the harm that results.[24] In order to hold a local government liable under section 1983, the Supreme Court has interpreted this causation element to require that the harm be the result of action on the part of the government entity that implemented or executed a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers, or the result of the entity’s custom.[25] Further, the entity’s policy or custom must have been the “moving force” behind the alleged deprivation.[26] This “custom or policy” requirement is a dramatic departure from the rule of respondeat superior that prevails in many common law actions.[27]

A local government is said to have an unconstitutional policy when it fails to train its employees, and the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to an obvious need for such training, and the failure train will likely result in the employee making a wrong decision.[28] An unconstitutional policy may also exist if an isolated action of a government employee is dictated by a “final policymaker,”[29] or if the authorized policymaker approves a subordinate’s decision and the basis for it.[30] However, a supervisor can only be liable in his individual capacity if he directly participates in causing the harm–relying upon respondeat superior is insufficient.[31] The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a plaintiff must meet a heightened pleading standard to state a claim against a municipality for an unconstitutional custom or policy.[32]

(iv) “. . . [any person to] the deprivation of rights . . .”

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, it merely provides a method for the vindication of rights elsewhere conferred in the United States Constitution and Laws.[33] Therefore, a plaintiff may prevail only if he can demonstrate that he was deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes.  It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss all of the rights available under the United States Constitution, nevertheless, this article will provide an overview of perhaps the most utilized of all constitutional provisions–the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause [hereinafter “the Due Process Clause”].[34]

The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause was not intended to supplant tort law, or to become “a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the states.”[35] Against this backdrop, to state a claim for a deprivation of Due Process, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he possessed a constitutionally protected property interest; and (2) that he was deprived of that interest without due process of law.[36] Due process property interests are created by “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law–rules or understanding that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”[37] To have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, “a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.  He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.  He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”[38] While the existence of a protected property interest is decided by reference to state law, the determination of whether due process was accorded is decided by reference to the Constitution.[39] Due process requires that “a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case,'”[40] but the state does not have to provide the same remedies available under section 1983 in order to satisfy due process.[41]

In construing the Due Process Clause, the United States Supreme Court has held that negligent acts by state actors do not effect a “deprivation” for the purposes of the Due Process Clause,[42] and the random and unauthorized conduct of a government actor, even if intentional, does not implicate the Due Process Clause if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, such as, for example, a tort remedy in its own courts.[43] However, where the state can feasibly provide a pre-deprivation hearing, it must do so regardless of the post-deprivation remedies available,[44] and in the absence of a special relationship created or assumed by the state, a state’s failure to protect an individual from violence or injury caused by private actors cannot state a violation of the Due Process Clause.[45]

In addition to protection against deprivations of procedural due process, the Due Process Clause has two substantive components–the substantive due process simpliciter, and incorporated substantive due process.  In order to state a claim for a violation of the substantive due process simpliciter, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in conduct that was “arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.”[46] This form of due process has very limited application,[47] but, in contrast to certain procedural due process claims,[48] the existence of adequate post-deprivation remedies does not bar a substantive due process claim.[49] With respect to incorporated substantive due process, the plaintiff may state a claim by proving a violation of one of the Bill of Rights.  The Supreme Court has held that one of the substantive elements of the Due Process Clause protects those rights that are fundamental–rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and has, over time, held that virtually all of the Bill of Rights protect such fundamental rights and has likewise held that they apply to the states through the “liberty” interest of the Due Process Clause.[50] However, the Court has held that when a specific provision within the Bill of Rights already provides protection, the more generalized notion of due process should not be used to define constitutional rights.[51]

In addition to providing a remedy for deprivations of constitutional rights, section 1983 also makes actionable violations of federal “Laws.”[52] A violation of a federal statute is cognizable only when the violation trammels a right secured by federal law.[53] However, a statute is said to create a federal right only when “the provision in question is intended to benefit the putative plaintiff,”[54] unless it reflects merely a congressional preference for a certain kind of conduct rather than a binding obligation on the government unit,[55] or unless the putative plaintiff’s interest is too vague and amorphous such that it is beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce.[56]

(v) ” . . . shall be liable . . . in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . “

There is no requirement that the plaintiff sue in federal court because state courts have concurrent jurisdiction,[57] and the usual rule is exhaustion of administrative and judicial state remedies is not a prerequisite to a section 1983 action.[58] Also, the existence of concurrent state remedies is not a bar to a section 1983 action.[59] With respect to the extent of damages available, the Supreme Court has noted that the basic purpose of a section 1983 damages award is to compensate the victims of official misconduct, and therefore held that there is no limit on actual damages if they can be proven.[60] But where they are not proved, only nominal damages of $1.00 may be awarded.[61] Punitive damages may also be awarded, but not against a municipality.[62] Injunctive relief is also permitted.[63]


States and state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court,[64] but local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability.[65] Further, state law sovereign immunity and state law limitations on damages do not protect local governments from liability under section 1983,[66] and state laws requiring pre-suit notification prior to initiating an action against the state or its subdivisions similarly do not apply.[67] Therefore, local governments are left in the unique and unhappy situation of being subject to suit without the benefit of any form of immunity.

In contrast to the distinct lack of immunity available to local governments, individual capacity defendants are protected by qualified immunity.[68] Qualified immunity is a powerful tool that shields individual officials who are performing discretionary activities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”[69] A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his “act is so obviously wrong, in the light of preexisting law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing.”[70] The qualified immunity inquiry is purely objective–the subjective intentions of the actor is irrelevant.[71] Qualified immunity is not only immunity from liability, but it is immunity from suit as well,[72] and shields individual capacity defendants even where a constitutional violation may have occurred.  Likewise, a court should scrutinize a plaintiff’s claim to determine if the plaintiff states a constitutional claim at all, prior to analyzing whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.[73] The burden of proving that the law was clearly established cannot be carried by stating constitutional rights in general terms–a plaintiff within the eleventh circuit must cite to specific decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, or the highest state court in which the case arose.[74]

Qualified immunity must be plead as an affirmative defense by the defendant official,[75] and becomes a matter for the court to decide, even if it requires a factual determination as to whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances,[76] and the court should rule on the issue of qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage of litigation.[77] An individual defendant in federal court[78] may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity,[79] even if a prior appeal of the denial of qualified immunity was unsuccessful, and even if other claims remain for trial.[80] Until the issue of qualified immunity is decided, the defendant official may resist discovery,[81] and there is authority to the effect that he may stay the entire proceedings during an appeal of the denial of qualified immunity.[82] While the Supreme Court has rejected a heightened pleading standard for claims against local governments, a plaintiff must nevertheless plead facts with specificity to overcome an individual capacity defendant’s qualified immunity.[83]

Private individuals who perform state functions,[84] and private corporations who contract with the government[85] may not be entitled to qualified immunity.  State and local legislators[86] and judges[87] are protected by absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacity for damages or injunctive relief, while prosecutors[88] are entitled to absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacities for damages only.  In any event, as discussed above, all individual capacity defendants are, at a minimum, entitled to qualified immunity.

The Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts did not contain a statute of limitations for section 1983 actions, and it is appropriate to adopt a local time limitation so long as it is not inconsistent with federal law.[89] The Supreme Court has held that section 1983 is best characterized as a tort action for the recovery of damages, and therefore held that the appropriate statute of limitations to be adopted is the state statute applicable to personal injury actions.[90]

IV.            ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976[91] provides that one who prevails[92] in a section 1983 action is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees.  There is little doubt that the addition of this attorney’s fee provision fueled the growth in the number of section 1983 cases that have been filed because it has been held that prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust, while a prevailing defendant may be awarded attorneys’ fees only “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad fait



[1]. The catalyst for the enactment of the Act was the “campaign of violence and deception in the South, fomented by the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying citizens their civil and political rights.”  Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985).  The following quote from Representative Lowe of the 42nd Congress is illustrative:

While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynchings and banishing have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local administrators have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective.  Combinations, darker than the night that hides them, conspiracies, wicked as the worst of felons could devise, have gone unwhipped of justice.  Immunity is given to crime and the records of public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.

Cong. Globe, 42d Cong. 1st Sess., 374 (1871)(remarks of Rep. Lowe)(quoted in Wilson, 471 U.S. at 276)).

[2]. Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305 (1986).

[3]. 365 U.S. 167 (1961).

[4]. See section II(ii), infra, for a discussion of the “under color of state law” requirement.

[5]. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).

[6]. Id.

[7]. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

[8]. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 25, 31 (1991); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985).

[9]. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 701 (1978).

[10]. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

[11]. Id.

[12]. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 25 (1991).

[13]. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985).

[14]. Government officials may be sued in their individual capacity.  Such a suit does not represent a suit against the government entity for which he is associated. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985).  The failure to identify in which capacity a defendant is being sued is a critical pleading defect.  Colvin v. McDougall, 62 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1995).

[15]. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 210 (11th Cir. 1992); Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b).  For example, Florida law provides that divisions of local governments, such as police departments, do not have the capacity to be sued.  Florida City Police Department v. Corcoran, 661 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

[16]. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980).

[17]. Section 1983’s requirement that a person act “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State or Territory or District of Columbia” is commonly abbreviated as “under color of state law.”

[18]. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988)(quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 144, 152 (1970).  However, in the only case in which the Supreme Court held that a government employee did not act under color of sate law, the Court held that a public defender does not act under color of state law while performing a lawyer’s traditional function of representing criminal defendants. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

[19]. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172 (1961).

[20]. Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 162 (1992); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982).

[21]. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Ort v. Pinchback, 786 F.2d 1105 (11th Cir. 1986).

[22]. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 929 (1982).

[23]. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in part, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).

[24]. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285-87 (1977).

[25]. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691, (1978).  This “custom or policy” requirement has also been applied to private corporations who contract with the state to provide medical care to prisoners. Howell v. Evans, 922 F.2d 712, 723-24 (11th Cir.), order vacating appeal, 931 F.2d 711, 712 (11th Cir. 1991), partially reinstated and appealed sub nom, Howell v. Burden, 12 F.3d 190 (11th Cir. 1994).

[26]. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.

[27]. Monell, at 691-695; Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Fundiller v. City of Cooper City, 777 F.2d 1436, 1443 (11th Cir. 1985).  Isolated unconstitutional incidents, without more, cannot bind a municipality.  Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985).

[28]. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989); Gold v. City of Miami, 1998 WL 54803 (11th Cir. 1998); Sewell v. Town of Lake Hamilton, 117 F.3d 488 (11th. Cir. 1997).  However, where the employee’s proper course of action “is obvious to all without training or supervision, then the failure to train or supervise is generally not ‘so likely’ to produce a wrong decision as to support an inference of deliberate indifference by city policymakers to the need to train or supervise.”  Sewell, 117 F.3d at 490.

[29]. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986); Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997).  Who is a “final policymaker” is decided by reference to state law.  Pembaur, at 483; McMillan v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997).

[30]. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988).  However, merely going along with the discretionary decisions made by subordinates is not a delegation to them of the authority to make policy.  Id.

[31]. Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 836 (11th Cir. 1990); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990); Zatler v. Wainewright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986).

[32]. Leatherman v. Tarrant County, 507 U.S. 163 (1993).  There is, however, a heightened pleading standard for individual capacity claims.  See note 83 infra, and accompanying text.

[33]. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979).  Section 1983 does not provide for the vindication of rights secured by state law.  Id. at 145-146; Almand v. DeKalb County, 103 F.3d 1510, 1513 (11th Cir. 1997).

[34].  U.S.Const. amend. XIV, §1.  The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause is a limitation on state power, while the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause limits federal power.  Halinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314, 319 (1892).

[35]. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976).

[36]. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 (1979).

[37]. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972);  See also, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344 (1976).

[38]. Board of Regents, 408 U.S. at 576.

[39]. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985).

[40]. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542.

[41]. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-544 (1981).

[42]. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).

[43]. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)(“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the due process clause of the 14th amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.  For intentional, as for negligent deprivations of property by state employees, the state’s action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable postdeprivation remedy.”).  The Court later held that negligence does not constitute a “deprivation.”  Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).  See also, Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132 (1990).

[44]. Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 132.

[45]. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Santamorena v. Georgia Military College, 147 F.3d 1337, 1339-1340 (11th Cir. 1998).  As with all actions predicated upon a violation of the United States Constitution, in order to state a claim for a deprivation of due process, “state action” must be present.  The eleventh circuit has recognized three primary tests to determine whether the actions of a private entity constitute state action: (1) the public function test; (2) the state compulsion test; and (3) the nexus/joint action test.  National Broad Co. v. Communications Workers of Am., 860 F.2d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 1988).

[46]. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992); Rymer v. Douglas County, 764 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1985).

[47]. Collins, 503 U.S. at 125(“As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because the guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.”).  See also, County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)(high speed police chases with no intent to harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to liability for violation of substantive due process); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271-272 (plaintiff could not make out substantive due process claim for alleged prosecution without probable cause because Fourth Amendment is more appropriately considered); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989)(claims of force arrest by police officer during arrest or detention cannot state a substantive due process claim–it is more appropriately analyzed under Fourth Amendment); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1994)(in non-legislative cases, only procedural due process claims are available to pretextually terminated employees).

[48]. See note 46, supra, and accompanying text.

[49]. McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994).

[50]. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937).  For example, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy public trial, Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), apply to the states.

[51]. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989).

[52]. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980).

[53]. Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 101, 106 (1989) (“Section 1983 speaks in terms of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities,’ not violations of federal law.”).

[54]. Id.

[55]. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 19 (1981).

[56]. Golden State, 493 U.S. at 106 (quoting Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 431-32 (1987)).  See also, Maynard v. Williams, 72 F.3d 848, 851 (11th Cir. 1996).

[57]. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990).  Of course, a defendant in state court may remove to federal court.  28 U.S.C. § 1441.

[58]. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961)(exhaustion of judicial remedies is not a prerequisite); Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 501 (1982)(exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite).  But see, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)(a federal plaintiff is barred from seeking declaratory or injunctive relief relating to ongoing state criminal judicial proceedings); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)(plaintiff must prove that a conviction or sentence has been reversed prior to recovering damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit may be delayed up to 180 days to require the prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies).

[59]. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 124 (1990).

[60]. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978).

[61]. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112 (1992); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-267 (1978).

[62]. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 (1981).  A municipality may, however, be jointly and severally liable.  Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1989).

[63]. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[64]. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).  But as discussed above, because states are not “persons” under the statute, they cannot be sued in either state or federal court.  See note 6, supra, and accompanying text.

[65]. Owen v. City of Independence, MO, 445 U.S. 621 (1980); Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 699-700 (1978).

[66]. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990); Hamm v. Powell, 874 F.2d 766, 770 (11th Cir. 1989).

[67]. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988).

[68]. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).  See also, Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987); Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University Board of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 1994)(en banc).

[69]. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817; Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149.

[70]. Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149; Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402, 1406 (11th Cir. 1998)(the plaintiff must point to case law which predates the official’s alleged improper conduct, involves materially similar facts, and truly compels the conclusion that the plaintiff had a right under federal law).

[71]. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987); Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

[72]. “One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.”  Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991).  See also, Ansley v. Heinrich, 925 F.2d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 1991).

[73]. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991); GJR Investments Inc. v. Escambia County, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998).  Courts should not assume that the plaintiff states a constitutional claim simply to get to the qualified immunity issue.  Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232.

[74]. Jenkins v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826-27 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997)(en banc).  “Public officials are not obligated to be creative or imaginative in drawing analogies from previously decided cases.” Id. at 827.

[75]. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815.

[76]. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996); Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991); Stone v. Peacock, 968 F.2d 1163, 1166 (11th Cir. 1992)(if there are disputed factual issues regarding qualified immunity that a jury should resolve, special interrogatories would be appropriate).

[77]. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991).  A defendant official may assert the qualified immunity defense in 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, as an affirmative defense in a 12(c) request for judgment on the pleadings, and on a Rule 56(e) summary judgment motion.  Ansley v. Heinrich, 925 F.2d 1339, 1347 (11th Cir. 1991).

[78]. A defendant in state court does not necessarily have the right to an interlocutory appeal.  Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911 (1997).  But see, Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii).

[79]. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-26 (1985).  However, a defendant may not appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion on the issue of qualified immunity if the denial was based solely upon the existence of disputed factual issues, as opposed to a finding that the law was not clearly established, or that the defendant did not act objectively reasonably.  Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995).

[80]. Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911 (1997)(“[I]f [qualified immunity] is found applicable at any stage of the proceedings, it determines the outcome of the litigation by shielding the official from damages liability); Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305-11 (1996).  The other claims that remain for trial may consist of a claim against the official in his official capacity. Id.

[81]. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)(“If the defendant does plead the immunity defense, the district court should resolve that threshold question before permitting discovery”); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)(“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”).

[82]. Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James, 1998 WL 125776 (M.D.Ala. 1998)(citing Goshtasby v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 123 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1997))(relating to appeal of Eleventh Amendment immunity).

[83]. GJR Investments, Inc. v. Escambia County, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998).

[84]. See, Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997)(private prison guards are not entitled to qualified immunity); Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992)(private individuals who invoked state replevin, garnishment, or attachment statutes were not entitled to qualified immunity).  However, the Supreme Court did not “foreclose the possibility that private defendants . . . could be entitled to an affirmative defense based upon good faith and/or probable cause or that § 1983 suits against private, rather than governmental, parties could require plaintiffs to carry additional burdens.”  Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 169.

[85]. See, McDuffie v. Hooper, 982 F.Supp. 817 (M.D. Ala. 1997)(private corporate health care providers who contract with government agencies are not entitled to qualified immunity); Hartman v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 960 F.Supp 1577, 1582 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Smith v. United States, 850 F.Supp 984, 986 (M.D. Fla. 1994).  But see, Blumel v. Mylander, 954 F.Supp 1547, 1560 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

[86]. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719 (1980); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951).  However, individual legislative immunity does not apply where the decision is an application of policy to a specific party.  In that instance, the act is said to be administrative as opposed to legislative. Crymes v. DeKalb County, 923 F.2d 1482, 1486 (11th Cir. 1991).

[87]. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was amended in 1996 to provide judicial officers with immunity from injunctive relief.  This amendment partially overruled Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), which provided that judges were immune from suits for damages, but not injunctive relief.

[88]. Prosecutors are entitled to immunity for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” but a prosecutor engaged in investigative or administrative activities is only entitled to a good faith defense.  Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).  See also, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).

[89]. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483 (1980).

[90]. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985).  But accrual of the statute of limitations is governed by federal law, while tolling of the statute of limitations is governed by state law.  Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711, 716 n.2 (11th Cir. 1987).  See also, Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989).

[91]. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

[92]. One who recovers nominal damages is not a prevailing party.  Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992).  The Court reasoned that the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained.  Id. at 114 (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983)).  Also, see Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985), for a discussion of the interplay between 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the offer of judgment provision contained in Fed.R.Civ.P 68.

[93]. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978).


windsor bill 1970 bills us army portrait 1970 cropped 200w

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.  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.
Copyright, 2021, Lawless America



Bill Windsor filming Lawless AmericaI am Bill Windsor.  I am 74 years old and disabled.  I have the use of only one finger.

I live alone full-time in an RV.  It is currently at an RV Park in the Orlando, Florida area.

On May 25, 2023, I filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court.  I typed every word with my right index finger and the mouse.



Bill Windsor qualified for In Forma Pauperis and had his Petition reviewed AND APPROVED by Justice Clarence Thomas.

So, that was two hurdles successfully jumped. There are only three hurdles. ALL of the justices have now been sent Bill Windsor‘s Petition for consideration.

The main issue is so fundamental that it’s hard to imagine that I won’t get 18 Thumbs Up. But they grant very few original petitions for extraordinary relief.

Judges often exert their essentially unlimited powers and just deny such petitions or never let them get past either of the first two hurdles.

I was informed on June 1, 2023 by Jake in the United States Supreme Court Clerk’s Office that the Petition will be decided by a vote of all nine justices. BLOW ME AWAY!

I think they should give it to me just for being able to type a 77-page document with only one finger.

I am VERY EXCITED about this because a personal goal has been to set some precedents that could benefit other pro se parties. This will do that.

This may be EXTRA SPECIAL because I have been able to find just one U.S. Supreme Court Petition from a Pro Se Party that was granted.  Mine could be the second and the first one in 52 years. I would looooove that.

      • James Blumstein was the first.  He represented himself before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. Blumstein had recently moved to Tennessee, and he had sought to register to vote. At the time, Tennessee refused to allow anyone to register to vote unless the registrant had lived in Tennessee for at least one year. Blumstein argued that the durational residency requirement for voter registration was unconstitutional. Blumstein won his case 6–1.
      • Bill Windsor should be the second.
  • Two Defendants have won pro se over the years:

In the past decade, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the United States Supreme Court each year. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is granted in about 80 of those cases, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review — fewer than 3% of the total.

Can you even imagine the significance? My Petition is one of 8,000. 180 of those get reviewed, and mine is one of those 180. I’m proud….and just a little bit humble.

The Petition is about pro se rights. One of my favorite lines in it is: “Poor people deserve justice, too.”

You can read Bill Windsor’s U.S. Supreme Court Petition here.

Very, very, very few attorneys ever get to have a case before the United States Supreme Court. This is my second. Nanny Nanny Boo Boo.

If you know me, you are aware I rarely pull many punches. This Petition is only slightly tamer than most, but I flat call the judges involved corrupt again and again.

I hope this case gets national publicity. That will be great for the fight against INjustice and corruption.

July 24, 2023 was not a good day for me.  But at 3:11 a.m. on July 25, 2023, I checked the Docket of the United States Supreme Court, and I found this!

Supreme Court Docket

IU.S. Supreme Court Justics

On September 26, 2023, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will sit around a table in DC and decide if they will grant little Billy Windsor’s Pro Se Petition.

Approximately 8,000 petitions were submitted. 180 made the cut, and mine is one of the 180 to be decided by THE SUPREMES.

Two months ago, a man named Jake who claimed to be a Clerk for Judge Clarence Thomas called to inform me that my Petition was accepted. I guess he really was a Clerk.  I couldn’t help but worry this was some kind of hoax.

From my research, I appear to be only the second Pro Se party in history to reach the United States Supreme Court with a chance to get a favorable decision by all the justices.

So, September 26, 2023 is THE BIG DAY. The Opinion will issue sometime thereafter — probably the first of October as that is when the 2023 Term begins.

Notice the Jun 01 2023 Docket Entry. The Solicitor General of the United States read my Brief and chose not to file a response. I take that as a “We can’t beat this guy on the law, and he’ll come after us if we file a frivolous brief, so we won’t oppose it.” YAHOO!!!!!

*** *** ***

These are the QUESTIONS PRESENTED for the consideration of the justices:

The Petitioner brought suit in Case No. 2011-CV-200971 in the Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia for Violation of state laws.

Case No. 2011-CV-200971 was unlawfully removed to federal court where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“DISTRICT COURT) never addressed the removal and never determined jurisdiction. A series of Void Orders and Void Judgments were issued by the DISTRICT COURT, including Permanent Injunction Orders that purported to deny William M. Windsor (“WINDSOR) the right to file any action in a state court anywhere in America.

WINDSOR was denied appeals by wrongful denial of In Forma Pauperis status.

This Petition arises out of orders in the DISTRICT COURT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ELEVENTH CIRCUIT (“11TH CIRCUIT”).

I. Is a federal court order void when jurisdiction is never determined? If so, every order of the DISTRICT COURT and 11TH CIRCUIT is invalid, and this Court’s task is simple.

II. Does a federal court judge lack jurisdiction to place restrictions on the operation of state courts?

III. Is a federal court order placing restrictions on the operation of state courts a void order?

IV. Did the 11TH CIRCUIT err by denying appeals of William M. Windsor (“WINDSOR”) that incorporate the jurisdiction issue and the state court authority issue?

V. Did the DISTRICT COURT and the 11TH CIRCUIT err by denying In Forma Pauperis status to WINDSOR?

VI. Are there exceptional circumstances that require this Court to issue a Writ?

*** *** ***

The impact may be that we will have a modern-day U.S. Supreme Court decision clarifying what constitutes a void order.

We will have the first-ever U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring federal courts have no jurisdiction over state court matters. The Eleventh Circuit should be hammered for making me the only appellant in history who can’t file anything in a state court. Hundreds of decisions of appellate courts make it clear that federal courts have no jurisdiction over state courts. The Eleventh Circuit has said so repeatedly, except in my cases. LMFAO.

Hopefully, the Court will clarify that far more people will qualify for indigent status — those in bankruptcy and those from states that do not have community property.

Bottom Line: This Windsor case will be cited by attorneys and courts forever.

Unfortunately, this does not involve the case of my attempted murder. Praying Justice Thomas will like it as well.

How Judges Commit Crimes and Treason – New Discoveries

Where Judges Belong

Judges regularly commit the crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury.   And I believe many judges regularly commit treason as their intentional violation of the Constitution makes them domestic enemies.  In 2022, I’ve discovered new techniques in Texas, perhaps the most corrupt state in America.

Judges obstruct justice by using various techniques to render decisions and issue orders that are intended to deny justice.

They do this to favor certain parties and law firms.   They may do it for money or other considerations, or they may do it simply because they favor certain attorneys.

For our purposes now, why they do it is not as important as the fact that they do obstruct justice.  They all belong in prison.

To pursue criminal charges against judges, you need to document everything that is improper.  It is my opinion that a pattern and practice of this wrongdoing can establish the crime of obstruction of justice.

It is vital for you to understand the techniques used so you may identify specific examples of these crimes being committed against you.  Crimes such as these may be pursued through grand juries.  Having your list of crimes and evidence ready will prepare you to participate in filing criminal actions.






These are some of the techniques the judges use:

Ignore the Law

One of the primary techniques used by corrupt judges is to simply ignore the law. One party cites the law and overwhelming case law. The favored party doesn’t have the law on their side. The judge simply ignores the law and rules against the party that was legally right. In one instance, I presented literally thousands of cases that proved that I was right. In fact, there had never been a case in any court where there was a ruling other than one that would be in my favor. 

Cite Invalid Law

Sometimes a judge will feel like a citation of case law is needed to support their ruling. So, they claim a case applies when it doesn’t. Read the cases, and when a case is bogus, file a motion for reconsideration.

Ignore the Facts

Judges don’t address points raised by parties who aren’t favored. I find appellate judges are even more dishonest than lower court judges when it comes to ignoring the issues, facts, statutes, and case law. Lie about the Facts in Orders is lying under oath, and that is perjury. Judges are always under oath, and a judge is supposed to never say or write anything that isn’t true. So, when a judge knowingly lies in orders for the purpose of ruling against a party for the judge’s criminal reasons, it is a criminal violation of perjury. Each such instance is a separate count. In my cases, I continue to identify hundreds of counts of perjury. 

Ignore Issues

Another favorite technique is to simply ignore issues in orders. 

Conceal Evidence

A really dishonest judge like Judge Orinda Evans will simply conceal evidence. In my case, she has two documents that will prove fraud by the other party and their attorney as well as obstruction of justice by her. She simply conceals that evidence and refuses to allow it to see the light of day so her criminal efforts are not exposed. Approximately 12 other judges have aided and abetted her in this concealment.

Say Nothing in Orders

One of the favorite techniques of Judge Thomas W. Thrash and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges is to say nothing. They corruptly call an appeal “frivolous” and dismiss it with no explanation whatsoever. Sometimes the Eleventh Circuit writes a page or two simply reciting the history of the case, so it appears it is a real order, and then they write one sentence dismissing the appeal with no valid reason or explanation.

Block Filing of Motions and Evidence

By allowing the favored party to file anything they choose and blocking the filings and motions of the pro se party, judges commit the worst form of obstruction of justice. The pro se party is denied the information needed to defeat the other party, and there is no record of this evidence and these arguments on appeal. Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge William S. Duffey, and Judge Thomas W. Thrash have done this to me repeatedly.

Tamper with Evidence

Tampering with evidence is a crime. Judges commit tampering with evidence by causing evidence submitted for filing to disappear and not get added to the court record. Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge William S. Duffey, and Judge Thomas W. Thrash have done this to me repeatedly, in cahoots with the staff of the Clerk of the Court. I have proof that orders have been backdated. I suspect that we will discover that the two documents filed under seal in 1:06-CV-0714-ODE Docket #168 have been tampered with or destroyed. Maid of the Mist’s attorneys did a lot of tampering with evidence, and Judge Evans ignored it all.

Deny Constitutional Rights

The Constitution is meaningless to corrupt judges. They simply violate Constitutional rights with no regard for the people they damage. All of the judges that I have encountered have violated my Constitutional rights. I have been raped of my rights to due process. I have been denied the right to call witnesses, testify under oath, cross-examine witnesses, introduce evidence, file answers to motions filed by the favored party, file lawsuits, contact witnesses, and much more.

Violate and Ignore the Rules of Civil Procedure

By violating and ignoring the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, judges commit obstruction of justice. They allow the favored party to break rules and get away with it. For example, in my cases, the opposing parties have not filed a single affidavit as to facts. The Local Rules of Civil Procedure require that all alleged statements of fact in motions and other filings must be supported by affidavit. This has not been done by the opposing parties since 2008, but every motion that I file has an affidavit or a sworn verification. Other rules are ignored as well so the favored parties can get away with just about anything.

Automatically Rule against Certain Classes of People

Judges automatically rule against certain classes of people. The concept of fair and impartial judges is a fairy tale. I have proven that people who represent themselves as plaintiffs in the federal courts in Atlanta always lose. We have a right to represent ourselves in court, but we automatically lose. Judges are simply attorneys in black dresses, and they seem to uniformly hate parties who aren’t spending a fortune with attorneys, so they screw them.

Order Monetary Sanctions against Parties they want to Damage

The criminal judges inflict damage on parties who aren’t favored by ordering monetary sanctions against them. They inflict financial punishment to break people. 

Refuse to Disqualify Themselves

The Constitution and case law clearly provide that we are supposed to be entitled to a fair and impartial judge, but the corrupt judges simply ignore the law. They refuse to disqualify themselves so they can inflict damage on parties who aren’t favored. 

Violate their Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct

Like the rules of civil procedure, a judge’s Oath of Office and Code of Judicial Conduct READ great. But the judges pay no attention to the Oath or Code. When they intentionally violate their Oath and the Code of Judicial Conduct, they are intentionally damaging a party.

Conspire with Fellow Judges and Judicial Employees

The corrupt judges commit conspiracy with their fellow judges and judicial employees. They often need help from other judges as well as law clerks, the employees in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, and others.

Allow Perjury

Dishonest judges allow a favored party to lie and cheat. The felony of perjury is ignored. This is an excellent way for a crooked judge to allow a favored party who is dishonest to obstruct justice. When the judge knows the testimony is perjured, the judge is suborning perjury when he or she does nothing about it and accepts the perjury as if it was fact. 

Deny Hearings

In the federal courts in Fulton County Georgia, it is extremely difficult to get a hearing. In six years, I was never granted a hearing. Hearings are dangerous for dishonest judges as courtroom observers, media, and the transcript of the hearing will force the judges to be a little more honest.  In McLennan County Texas, the judges simply have their assistants ignore all requests for hearings.  I send emails, file motions, and place phone calls that are recorded.  I send them every few days.  I create pdfs of everything I do.

Practice Simulated Litigation

Dishonest judges don’t issue valid orders, and they do not maintain legal dockets. I guess this makes it easier for them to manipulate things. 

Dismiss Cases or Grant Summary Judgments

Dishonest judges ignore the law and violate the law by dismissing cases or by granting summary judgment. This is done regularly. This keeps the honest party from the right to have a jury make the decision.

Deny Jury Trials

Judges corrupt the judicial process by depriving parties of a jury trial. Juries can’t be controlled by the judges to ensure that their favored party wins, so judges end cases before the people who should win can reach a jury. 

Don’t Publish the Improper Orders

The Eleventh Circuit has NEVER published one of the orders in my appeals. When they are violating the law, they have protection by not publishing the order. This keeps it from the eyes of attorneys and other judges who would identify the wrongdoing. Publishing would also make their erroneous decisions precedents for other cases. The whole legal system would be turned even more upside down if this were to happen.

Judges are Corrupt

Corruption is the abuse of power by a public official.  As I see it, judicial corruption is dishonesty by a judge.  Corruption does not have to be economic in character.  A police officer who fabricates evidence against a person he believes to be guilty of pedophilia is not committing an economic crime; and he might do so because he believes the accused to be guilty, and does not want him to go unpunished.  Economics is not necessarily involved as an element of the officer’s crime or as a motivation.  When police do wrong they are often motivated by a misplaced sense of justice, rather than by financial reward.  Again, a person in authority motivated by sadistic pleasure who abuses his or her power by meting out cruel and unjust treatment to those subject to his or her authority, is not engaging in an economic crime; and he or she is not motivated by economic considerations.  Judges and many of those who occupy positions of authority are motivated by a desire to exercise power for its own sake, rather than by a desire for financial reward.  That said, bribery is generally regarded as the most serious form of public corruption.

Judges Simply Do Nothing

In McLennan County Texas, I have found that judges simply do nothing.  I’ve filed petitions for writ of mandamus to get appellate courts to require the judges to do their duty, but the appellate courts do nothing or lie.

Judges Deny Your Right to Obtain Discovery

Judges ignore your requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, and interrogatories.  And those you are seeking discovery from just ignore the requests because they know the corrupt judge will protect them. 

Judges Deny Your Right to File Actions

In McLennan County Texas, I have been denied the Constitutional right to seek guardianship of an elderly, disabled lady under the illegal pretense that I can’t seek guardianship because I am not an attorney.

Judges Order You to Appear in Person When You Can’t

Judges ignore the fact that you are disabled, are in the high-risk COVID category, live alone a thousand miles away, don’t have transportation, and have no way to attend a hearing in person.  When you don’t show up, you lose.

Judges Bring in a Judge from Another County to Serve as Your Executioner

Judge Jack Jones (not the singer) is the executioner judge from Bell County brought to McLennan County to put your civil case to death or ensure there is no way in Hell you can win.

Judges Communicate Illegally with Court Employees, Attorneys, Judges, Law Enforcement, Government Agencies, and Others

Judges coordinate the criminal conspiracy against you, or specify someone to coordinate the dirty work.  In McLennan County, I have extensive documentation of the extent of the involvement of various people and entities.  I even learned that a judge not involved in my case told people in his courtroom at the same time my hearing was being held that I was to lose that morning.  My subpoena for his deposition has been ignored.

Judges Award Bogus Monetary Sanctions

Judges can and will award monetary sanctions against you when you have done nothing wrong.  In a recent case, a daughter seeking guardianship of her mother was sanctioned.  She has no money, which the Court well knew.  She will probably have to file for bankruptcy.  I personally have been sanctioned and have lost millions of dollars because of absolutely corrupt judges.

Where Judges Belong

It is extremely wishful thinking that the judges in Lawless America will end up in jail.

We have a gargantuan problem in America.  Over the last 14 years, I’ve come up with a number of ideas to try to get our fellow Americans to understand the gravity of the situation.  Nothing has accomplished much.  We live in Lawless America… a hopelessly corrupt country.  So, be fully aware of what you/we are up against.  I hate to say it, but your only real hope of winning in a corrupt court is if you can afford to hire an attorney who will assure you that he or she has a relationship with your judge that should ensure you will win.

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, 2022-2023, Lawless America



My Special Thanksgiving 2014 Revisited by Bill Windsor and Lawless America

Happiest of Thanksgivings to You and Yours from Bill Windsor and Lawless America.

I’ll be all alone this Thanksgiving.  I’ll search DoorDash in search of turkey or Chinese about noon, but it will be a quiet day.  I used to have a family and enjoyed many wonderful Thanksgivings with my former son, daughter, and my very special granddaughters, but fighting corruption took that away from me.

But enough of sad, please allow me to tell you about my Special Thanksgiving…

On October 28, 2014, I was in the 40th Judicial District Court in Waxahachie Texas for a hearing in civil case #88611 (William M. Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid, et al).  I was surprised to see Ellis County District Attorney Patrick Wilson and Ellis County Texas Sheriff Johnny Brown in the audience for the hearing as well as a small army of Ellis County Sheriff’s deputies. The hearing lasted from 1:30 pm to a little after 5:00 pm. It was the last hearing of the day, and it had nothing to do with the DA or the Sheriff.

I was detained on October 28, 2014 at approximately 5:30 pm by the Ellis County Sheriff’s Department as I left the courtroom.  I was informed that there was a warrant from Montana.  

I was taken to the Ellis County Jail.  I was not given any paperwork or explanation as to why I was there.  My personal property was taken from me.  I had never been in jail, never charged with a crime, not even a traffic ticket or parking ticket in 15 years (now 23 years).

I was told that I had been granted a $100,000 bond and was given the opportunity to post bond for “violations of a protective order.”  No details were given.

I am EXTREMELY claustrophobic, and the first two days were terrifying in that regard.  I seriously questioned whether I could make it.  I take medication nightly for claustrophobia, but I had no medicine with me, and speaking to an Ellis County Texas Jail staff member is like talking to a stump.

At 2:00 am on October 29, 2014, I was given a telephone call by Officer Jerri Smith.  It was too late to reach anyone, and the telephones at the Ellis County Texas jail do not allow a message to be left on voice mail.  I knew only two phone numbers – my former son and a woman I used to live with (who claims to be my ex-wife).  I called them at least a dozen times each over the next three days.  Neither of them ever accepted my calls, and they never did anything to help me.  So much for so-called “family.”  The feeling of being completely alone is a feeling that I hope I never experience again.

While I was told that my bond was set at $100,000, when I got bail bond companies to provide the bond, the Ellis County Jail refused to accept it.

I was then moved from the Booking Area to “O” Tank in the Ellis County Jail at about 4:00 pm on October 30, 2014.  While in Booking, I was exposed to staph and MRSA as well as one extremely violent crazy man.  I was really apprehensive about moving into “population.” 

“O” Tank is a 24-man cell of approximately 1,500 square feet; 12 double bunks, three 8-seat iron picnic-style tables, three toilets, three sinks, two showers, cement block walls, cement floor, steel ceiling, bulletproof glass windows to the guard area, not bars.  I immediately met Thomas Joe Edward Lee aka T.J. and several other young men, and I was relieved and felt comfortable.  It was not scary as I anticipated.  I never met anyone older than me, and 95% of the men there could have been my children or grandchildren.  I’d estimate the average age to be 28.  Other new friends made the first day in “O” Tank at the Ellis County Jail included Marquavius Woods (the only person other than me who I met out of hundreds who did not have tattoos); Jonathan Rima (a nice young man on crutches); Bryan (a tall guy who traded his semi-lumpy mattress for my giant lumps mattress); Michael McGowan (a handicapped black man who had been unable to obtain any help from his court-appointed attorney);  Ignacio Galvan aka Nacho (nicknamed me Montana and “hazed” me the first night by saying the newest guy had to get up and turn out the lights – and there is no switch and the lights are always on); Zach (a really nice trustee with a hearing loss similar to mine); and Robert Davidson aka Jake or The Vape Master (a young guy who fell behind on court payments and got his probation revoked as a result). 

I found that older men command almost universal respect in jail/prison.  In addition to “Montana,” I was nicknamed Old School or School, for short.  This is a common prison term for anyone seen as quite a bit older than you.  That meant I was “School” to everyone.  I later learned that “Pops” and “PawPaw” are also common.  It seems that most people in jail must have called their grandfathers “PawPaw,” because I was called PawPaw a lot.  As miserable as the experience was, I really did meet wonderful people.  I cannot imagine what it would have been like without such kind people who immediately had my back, my front, and my sides.  I was taken care of the whole time I was there as if I was actually the PawPaw to these guys.  I was especially relieved to see how open the tank was as that really lessened the claustrophobia.  My claustrophobia is so bad that I can’t even watch a movie where someone is in a small, restricted space.

My first jail meal other than bologna sandwiches served in a paper sack (“Johnny Sack”) in Booking was something that faintly resembled hamburger meat, two slices of bread, broccoli stems, two cookies, and a would-be Kool-Aid.  I scarfed it down. I was so upset for the three days in Booking that I hadn’t eaten.

It may be hard for those who have never experienced this, but I made really good friends in jail with men and boys with whom I seemingly had very little in common.  I found most of my fellow inmates to be extremely kind, very honest, and thankful for the smallest of gestures. 

Most of my fellow inmates had little or absolutely NO money on their books.  They couldn’t even buy a cracker.

Some men are lucky enough to have money on their books, so they can buy all kinds of things from the Commissary Lady.  It saddened me to see the guys with no money.  It had to be really hard on them to see what other guys were enjoying.  I had money.  I ended up giving away half of what I bought.
This is an actual photo of a Jail Spread meal.  It tastes better than it looks. 🙂
The hottest Commissary item is called “soups” by the inmates.  They are actually Ramen Noodle packages.  They come in an array of flavors (usually very spicy), and soups are the #1 commodity behind bars.  Sold by the Commissary Lady for 99 cents, a soup is an inexpensive meal for men who never got filled from the jail-sized servings at breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  Hot water is used to cook the soups.  And the many jailhouse chefs have concocted a wide variety of recipes for their soups.  They use items saved from dinner or purchased from the Commissary.  The fancier, multiple inmate meals are called “spreads.”
This is a fairly typical recipe for a Jail Spread — but much more spicy in Texas.
I’m not a cook, so when I enjoyed a soup, someone else did the cooking.  I enjoyed a basic soup with beans, chili or tuna added.  I enjoyed soup-based burritos, and best of all I enjoyed soup pizza.  The pizza makers would get the spread participants to save their hot dogs at dinner and they cut them up as makeshift pepperonis.  There is no end to the ultra-spicy commissary items, so the pizza could include anything from jalapeno Cheetos or spicy chili Fritos to real jalapenos, fire-alarm chili, spicy pickles, and more.
The cooking consists of hot water in a plastic bag, salvaged from some Commissary item or rescued before it hit a trash pile.  The goop is mixed with hot water in the plastic bag, then covered with cardboard from the back of a legal pad and bath towels – all to keep the heat in.
Served with a side order of saltine crackers (99 cents for a full sleeve), these soups and spreads are surprisingly good.  Claxton made a tuna spread for us in the Ellis County Texas Jail that remains my absolute favorite!  It is amazing what you can convince yourself is good when you have little or nothing.
As Thanksgiving 2014 drew nearer, I learned that the Thanksgiving meal in the Ellis County Texas Jail is not very big or very good.  I thought it would be great to do something for my fellow convicts, so I arranged for someone on the outside to put $50 on the books of four of my fellow prisoners.  We then ordered $200 worth of the Commissary Lady’s finest spicy foods, soups, crackers, and the like so we could put together a huge Thanksgiving Spread.
I swear it looks a lot better to you in jail when you don’t have as much as you’d like to eat!
I wanted to keep my involvement a secret, but one or more of my helpers couldn’t help but blab, and everyone found out that I was responsible for the extra meal that we all enjoyed on Thanksgiving Day 2014.
You would have thought I had given them each a million dollars.  The men were SO appreciative.  Most of them had probably never experienced a random act of kindness.
We laughed and talked and ate, and a good time was had by all.  24 boys and men, all stuck in a place that none of us wanted to be.  Most were guilty of drinking too much, using drugs, or being poor.  All were victims of broken systems.
It may seem strange that my favorite Thanksgiving of all time will be Thanksgiving 2014 with 23 fellow prisoners, but I cannot imagine anything could ever top it.  I am thankful for every boy and man I met in jail, thankful for their friendship, thankful for what I learned from them, and thankful that I can now crusade against the many wrongs of our broken penal system.
If you have a friend or relative in jail, I encourage you to put some money on their books.  It will mean the world to them!  It is better to give than to receive.  Happy Thanksgiving!

I know that some of the guys are out and will read this article, so I cannot fail to mention my other friends from the Ellis County Jail in Waxahachie, Texas.  These friends include Carlos Amador aka Paradise, Zachary Anderson, Cody Barnes, James Boyette aka The Boxer, David Bradshaw, Steven Calder aka The Enforcer, Lejonathan Cox, Greg Deloach, Cristoval Diaz, Brian Eaton, Michael Finch, Julian FiraDonald Ford, Francisco Garcia, Justin Garcia aka Houston, Arcadio Garza, Michael Gonzales, Lonnie Hall, Michael Harvey, Robert Holland, Chris HornRobert Jack, Aaron Jones aka AJ or Lover Boy, Zackery Jones aka Locker, Greg Mason, Billy Mizer, Faustino Montemayor aka Claxton, James Myers aka Cellie, Heath Neitzel, Nicholas Parker, Eugenio Pena aka The Barber, Lonny Ramirez, Matthew Rauen, Bobby Rhodes aka Tank Boss, Benton Skelton, Louis Stocker aka Organized, Amber Vanderzwart, Gustavo Villanueva, Hector Villanueva.  This does not include those who have been released or sent to The Big House, including Jacob Aparicio, Justin Johnston, John Florence, Jamie Ellis, Jordan Brittain, De’Juan Wilson, Aaron Drake, Terrance Marion, Drake Hernandez, Lawrence Murley, Scotty Stewart.


A Thanksgiving tradition for Windsors has included having everyone write down what they are thankful for.

This is what my Dad wrote.  I am thankful for my Jailhouse and Lawless America Friends, my new family.

I will be announcing a special filming in Amarillo, Texas.  I am asking every member of the Amarillo Police Department to be interviewed.  I will have a 50,000-volt Axon Taser 26, and I will invite each policeperson to be shot with it.  I’m thinking of offering a $50 million reward to anyone who can absorb 1,500,000 volts of electricity and still be alive.  So far, Hunter Tyler Schreck is the only person in the world to have endured such torture much less live to tell about it.

Image copyright Friends of Bill Windsor

If you want to reach Bill Windsor, his email is

For the Lawless America videos, see  Bill Windsor’s Facebook page is  Bill Windsor’s Twitter account is  And click here for the Lawless America Facebook page that magically reappeared.


{jcomments on}

 windsor bill 2014 10 28 mugshot ellis county jail 200w

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.  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.


Fatal Shooting of Man with Mental Disabilities Who Called 911

There has been a fatal shooting of a young man with mental health problems who called 911 in Colorado.

This prompts reminders of when the Amarillo Police Department attempted to murder Hunter Tyler Schreck (many stories on this website about that tragedy).

Continue reading Fatal Shooting of Man with Mental Disabilities Who Called 911

Fraudulent Inducement upon the Family of Tom Kibler


Tom Kibler and his family are the victims of fraudulent inducement.

This article was written by Tom Kibler. His full story is at

Continue reading Fraudulent Inducement upon the Family of Tom Kibler

What Bill Windsor has learned about Corruption since 2008

In 2007, Bill Windsor was awfully naive for a former president of a Goldman Sachs company. He thought judges were honest. He has learned there is no such thing...

William Michael Windsor was found guilty of being NAIVE.

In 2008, 60-year-old Bill Windsor was sued in a completely bogus lawsuit that it turns out was designed to stop him from discovering a multi-billion dollar fraud.

$2,000,000 in legal fees later, William Michael Windsor ceased to be so naive.

32-year Federal Judge Orinda D. Evans took Bill Windsor from a retired multi-millionaire to a poor person.  Horrendous Orinda also made Bill Windsor an Activist.  Bill Windsor hates, loathes, and despises liars, and Judge Orinda D. Evans lied and lied and lied some more to take care of the largest law firm in Georgia that represented the New York liars who had sued him.

Even after this, Bill remained naive.  He did not stop to think that if Judge Orinda D. Evans did this to him, she would be doing it to others.  Or that other judges were corrupt.

The naive light started to flicker when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals failed to reverse Orinda D. “the Liar” Evans.  Then the United States Supreme Court refused to tell the federal judges in Georgia that they had to abide by the United States Constitution.  Even then, Bill Windsor did not realize he was not the only Mohican experiencing this.

An article ran online asking if the United States Supreme Court had voided the Constitution.  It was the story of William Michael Windsor’s pro se journey to the United States Supreme Court.  The article gave Bill’s email address and a home telephone number.  Over 7,000 people emailed Bill to tell their stories of judicial and government corruption.  Bell South’s voicemail system broke after better than 600 people called and left voicemails telling their stories.

So, no more naivete…kind of.  Bill still wants to believe some people are honest.  That’s just his nature.

Bill came up with one idea after another to try to help save America.  He launched and began publishing articles.  Over a decade later, millions of eyeballs have seen the 1,727 articles.  This has clearly been the most effective thing he has done.  He has had to battle haters, hackers, malware, and corrupt government officials.

In 2010, former radio and TV announcer Bill Windsor began an online radio show.

Bill generated over 50,000 followers on Facebook until they canceled his page due to “nudity, pornography, and solicitation of sex.”  AT&T canceled his long-time email address claiming a violation of terms of service (never to be identified).  Bill has had his life threatened hundreds of times.  Sean Boushie attempted to murder him, but missed and hit the car next to him.  While he has never committed a crime, Bill was held in jail for 134 days.

In 2012 and 2013, Bill drove to all 50 states to produce and direct a documentary about government, judicial, and law enforcement corruption.  Before he departed, he told his radio listeners that he didn’t believe there was an honest judge anywhere in America.  People told him not to say that as he would lose all credibility.  A year and 1,500 interviews later, Bill Windsor KNOWS he has found only two seemingly honest judges — one in Gwinnett County Georgia, Judge Joseph C. Iannazzone, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.  But Judge Joseph C. Iannazzone was back before Bill had become the leading authority in America on judicial corruption.  Now he has a target on his back that glows in the dark.

Judge Iannazzone Amy Coney Barrett

We live in Lawless America.  Our Constitution is amazing, and we have many great laws.  The problem is that the Constitution, the laws, and the rules are routinely violated.  That puts us in Lawless America.

In 2021 and 2022, Bill experienced first-hand that everyone in Texas is corrupt — judges, government officials, government agencies, attorneys, court personnel, district attorneys, police, sheriffs, you-name-it.  Bill is preparing to sue the State of Texas in the United States Supreme Court.  Perhaps Justice Amy Coney Barrett will do the right thing.  Naive?  Or an eternal optimist?

If we have any chance to save America, it is up to all of us Nobodies.  Explain briefly to at least one person a day that none of us will ever see justice unless we educate millions of our fellow residents of Lawless America. 


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