Bill Windsor Appellants Brief in Attempted Murder by 18-Wheeler Finally Docketed

After almost three months, Bill Windsor Appellants Brief in Attempted Murder by 18-Wheeler has finally been docketed. Please excuse numbering errors as WordPress caused these in the copy and paste process:

Here is the PDF: 6D23-2476-APPELLANT S-BRIEF-on-Merits-Inital-2023-08-25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

APPEAL OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA SIXTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM WINDSOR, CASE NO.: 6D23-2476

CASE NO. 2018-CA-010270-O

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT KEITH LONGEST, an individual, and BOISE CASCADE BUILDING MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C., a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

William M. Windsor, Plaintiff, Appellant 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108 352-###-#### — windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

Matthew J. Conigliaro, Defendants’ Appellate Attorneys Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607, (813) 229-4254 mconigliaro@carltonfields.com, devans@carltonfields.com, tpaecf@cfdom.net

Blake Mansker — Scott Warburton, Defendants’ Attorneys Adams | Coogler, P.A., 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1600, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, 561 -478-4500 Fax: 561-478-7847 bmansker@adamscoogler.com, rurban@adamscoogler.com, swarburton@adamscoogler.com, and ajohnson@adamscoogler.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………i

TABLE OF CITATIONS………………………………………………………. ii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ………………………………………………….	1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………….	40
ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………41
ARGUMENT I — THE DEFENDANTS NEVER FILED A
LAWFUL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, SO THERE WAS
NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES
OR THE DEFENDANTS. WINDSOR WON BY DEFAULT…..	41
ARGUMENT II — WINDSOR WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS
IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA………………………………….	42

ARGUMENT III — THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR FLORIDA STATUTE TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO

DENY OR REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-
REPRESENTATION…………………………………………………….	57
ARGUMENT IV — THE 03/22/2023-ORDER VIOLATES
FLORIDA STATUTE 38.10, THE GENERAL FLORIDA
DISQUALIFICATION STATUTE…………………………………….	58

ARGUMENT V — THE CASES CITED BY JUDGE JEFF ASHTON DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AS HE DID……..59

ARGUMENT VI — THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY

WINDSOR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF……………………….. 61

ARGUMENT VII — THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OTHER

FILINGS BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNSIGNED AND MUST

BE DISREGARDED AND CONSIDERED VOID…………………………………. 63

ARGUMENT VIII — THIS CASE INVOLVES VOID ORDERS AND

JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT……………………………… 65

ARGUMENT IX — THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY

WINDSOR THE RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE AND

DISQUALIFY JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON…………………..65

ARGUMENT X — THE ACTIONS OF JEFF ASHTON AND

THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF

18 U.S.C. 1519………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

ARGUMENT XI — JEFF ASHTON AND THE CLERK OF

COURT DESTROYED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED

FLORIDA STATUTE 839.13………………………………………………………………………………….. 68

ARGUMENT XII — THERE ARE NO FACTUAL FINDINGS

TO SUPPORT DISMISSAL……………………………………………………………………………………… 69

ARGUMENT XIII — JEFF ASHTON COMMITTED MANY

VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, RULES, AND CODES………………………. 69

ARGUMENT XIV — THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO

REQUIRE WINDSOR TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR HAVE

HIS CASE DISMISSED, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS IN

CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………….. xi

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………………….xii

VERIFICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xiii

	iii
	TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES		PAGE NUMBER

18 U.S.C. 1519……………………………………………………41, 67

18 U.S.C. 4……………………………………………………………..72

ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility……………………….

Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968)…………..…62

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978)………………………62

Cannon v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1975)

14 Cal. 3d 678, 694……………………………………………..62

Canon 3E………………………………………………………….51, 52

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978)….51

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978)….66

Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension,

508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted)…………..54, 55

Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957)………………………51

Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957)………………………66

Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass,

417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…………………………..64

Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932)….51, 66

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)………………………….62

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)………………..62

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905………………62

Faretta v. California (1975)…………………………………………62

Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978)…….62

Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct……………………..12

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct……………………… 51, 52, 59

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3……….66

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3-B (7) and E. 2 I

.……………………………………………………………….59, 66

Florida Constitution § 9……………………………………….42, 61

Florida Criminal Statute 839.13………………………………..

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule-2.330…………….59

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.140……………………42

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.190 (e)………………..35

Florida Rules of Judicial Admin 2.160………………………59, 66

Florida Statute 38.02………………………………………………..59

Florida Statute 38.10………………………………………………..59

Florida Statute 839.13………………………………………………68

Florida Statute 92.525……………………………………………..xiii

Florida Statutes……………………………………………………….59

Geiler v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1973)

10 Cal.3d 270, 286………………………………………………..62

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893)……………………62

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970)…………………….53

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966)……………………..62

Gonzalez v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, (1983)

33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374…………………………………………62

Haines v. Kerner (1972)……………………………………………….62

In Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)………………….61

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)…………………………….56

In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66…………………56

In re: Windsor, Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648…………………………………………..…1, 28, 65

In re: Windsor, Case#6-21-bk-04061 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida…..……………….…..2

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959)………………62

Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971)……….54, 55

Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,

172, (1951)…………………………………………………….51, 66

Judiciary Act of 1789…………………………………………………61

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885)…….62

Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960)

………………………………………………………………………..54, 55

Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994)………………………………….54

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972)…….56

Lowery v. Kaplan 650 So. 2d 114 (4 DCA 1995)………………58

Maid of the Mist v. Alcatraz Media, Superior Court of Gwinnett County Georgia, Case#05A-10097-3……………2

Maid of the Mist v. Alcatraz Media, USDCNDGA

Case#1-06-CV-0714-ODE-Docket—361-362……………..….2

Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894)

……………………………………………………………………..…..52, 53

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980)….51, 53, 66

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976)……………….66

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)………….62

Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008)………56

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603……….62

Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc.,

184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966)……………………………64

Ninth Judicial Circuit Courtroom Decorum Policy……………..12

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442………………….62

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954)

…………………………………………………………………………..54, 55

Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)…………………..62

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.)

738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824)…………………………………56, 62

Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972)………………………54, 55

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals…………………………………………………….62

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc)……………………………………………..57

Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233………………………………………….62

Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)……………………………………………………………64

Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate 613 So, 2d 515 (3DCA 1993)…………58

Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin………………………………..51, 52

Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.….64

Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association………………………………………..62

Rule 9.210(a)(2)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure…………………………………………………………….xii

Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982)……………….

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)……………………………62

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)………………62

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649………………………………….62

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)…………..53

State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613

(1939)…………………………………………………………..51, 66

State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930)…………………………………………………………..52, 66

Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037……..54

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332……………………………62

U.S. Constitution……………………………………………………..61

U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, § 1……………….

U.S. Constitution Sixth Amendment…………………………….44

U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990)………………56

U.S.C. § 1654.…………………………………………………………61

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261

(1882)……………………………………………………………….62

Wanda I. Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So.3d 916 (Fla. App. 2020)……………………………………………………………….43

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir.

1996)……………………………………………………………….62

Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA

2014)……………………………………………………………….42

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil case for personal injury negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. An Order of Dismissal against WINDSOR with Prejudice was dated 07/18/2023 in Case #2018-CA-00270-O. [APPENDIX-5001.]
But on 07/24/2023, in Appellate-Case#6D23-2476, the Clerk issued an Order to Show Cause within twenty days why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [APPENDICES—5002-6357.]
And on 07/31/2023, in Appellate-Case#6D23-2476, an Order for Immediate Filing of Brief was issued. WINDSOR was given 30 days to serve the Initial Brief. [APPENDICES-5003-5004.]

So, here it is.

WINDSOR has not received hearing transcripts that have been promised. [APPENDICES 6405-6406-6407-6408.]
WINDSOR currently has pending U.S. Supreme Court Case #22-7648, distributed for Conference of 09/26/2023. [APPENDICES-5005-5006.] These cases are related; WINDSOR is the Pro-Se Plaintiff in both cases, and both cases involve intentional abuse of WINDSOR in denial of his Constitutional rights.

In 2005 at age 56, WINDSOR thought judges were honest and court was where justice is done. On 08/29/2005, WINDSOR, who was retired, was sued in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County Georgia, Case#05A-10097-3. The sworn complaint [APPENDIX-5007] was completely false as was proven in depositions and affidavits. [APPENDIX-5008.] See USDCNDGA Case#1-06-CV-0714-ODE-Docket—361-362. [APPENDIX-6358.]
Despite the overwhelming facts and the law, Judge Orinda D. Evans (“JUDGE EVANS”) entered an order for the Plaintiffs. [APPENDIX-5009.] WINDSOR has sworn under penalty of perjury that her Order contained 210 false statements. [APPENDIX-6403.] WINDSOR believes a 32-year federal judge doesn’t make 210 “errors” in one order; she committed 210 corrupt acts to benefit the largest law firm in Georgia.
The actions of JUDGE EVANS, Judge Thomas W. Thrash (“JUDGE THRASH,”) and the 11TH CIRCUIT cost WINDSOR millions of dollars and wiped out his finances. He has struggled financially ever since and, at age 74, is in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (Case#6-21-bk-04061 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida). [APPENDICES-5011-5012.]

WINDSOR was brought up by wonderful parents who never lied, and they taught him this important lesson. WINDSOR has never lied in a legal matter, and he became committed to trying to make a difference in the legal system with those, like himself, who could not afford attorneys.
Blessed with a MENSA IQ, very strong reading and comprehension skills, and 42-words-per-minute typing speed with two fingers, WINDSOR studied paralegal work and, in 2010, began helping people (at no charge) who could not afford attorneys or paralegals (63% of the parties in civil courts today). 13 years later, he has helped several thousand people for free.
In 1967, WINDSOR began working in radio and television. He was in a special Press Corps at the Apollo 11 Launch. In 1977, he began publishing magazines.
In 2008, WINDSOR began publishing articles online about Pro-Se issues, and in 2009, he began hosting an online radio show for those who could not afford attorneys. In 2010, he hosted an online video conference and was contacted by over 10,000 people who wanted to tell him their stories of INjustice. This led to WINDSOR driving to all 50 states and DC in 2012 and 2013 to film

a documentary about government, judicial, and law enforcement corruption. The plan was to film 51 people, but 2500 showed up to be filmed. He managed to film 1500 in a year. Constituents of members of the House and Senate met WINDSOR in D.C. to personally deliver the Documentary to their legislators in 2013. (See https://www.LawlessAmerica.com and https://www.YouTube.com/LawlessAmerica.)

In late May 2011, WINDSOR was informed by radio talk show hosts of a plan to have him killed. WINDSOR notified the FBI and spoke with agent Harry Hammick but nothing was investigated. (See https://lawlessamerica.com/william-m-windsor-again-concerned-with-threats-from-the-us-government/.)
WINDSOR received hundreds of threats from people on the other side of stories he shared. It began about the time he managed to help encourage a judge to vacate an order that required a 13-year-old girl to have unsupervised sleep-over visits with her biological father who sexually molested her.
WINDSOR seems to be hated by every dishonest judge he encounters. His legal history is filled with dishonest and corrupt acts by judges.

On 08/04/2013, an attempt was made to murder WINDSOR. He was shot at on the Interstate in Montana, but the bullets hit a car to his right. [APPENDICES-5013-5014.] He received an email taking credit for the shooting, and WINDSOR was able to trace the IP to identify the shooter as Sean Boushie, a Montana man who had threatened WINDSOR hundreds of times because he filmed a woman Sean Boushie hated. [APPENDIX-5015.] See https://www.SeanBoushie.com. Two police departments, two sheriffs departments, and four courts did nothing. It became clear to WINDSOR that Boushie was protected by government people.
On 05/05/2017, an 18-wheeler smashed into WINDSOR at 70 miles per hour on the Florida Turnpike and sent WINDSOR and his car airborne. [APPENDIX-5054.]
MRIs, CT-SCANS, X-Rays, Ultrasounds, Nerve Conduction Studies, and more have been done since 05/05/2017. MRIs taken on 03/31/2023 reveal that WINDSOR’s injuries have progressed as there has been no medical treatment due to no money. He now has three Herniated Discs in his back, five Herniated Discs in his neck, ten Disc Bulges, and a Diastasis Recti abdominal injury… all generated by the DEFENDANTS on

05/05/2017. [APPENDICES-5016-5017.]

WINDSOR is in constant pain. He can barely walk with assistance. He has no balance. He has fallen as many as 100 times. He uses a walker and a cane, but he cannot go more than 30-feet without needing to rest.
He has difficulty sleeping and never more than a few hours at a time. He has lost 12 teeth and was recently told all remaining teeth must be extracted. This has been caused by medication WINDSOR takes for anxiety due to the accident and aftermath.
WINDSOR’s only hope for some relief came from this personal injury lawsuit (Case #2018-CA-010270-O (“010270”)) as his personal insurance coverage ran out long ago. WINDSOR was in excellent physical health before he was crushed on 05/05/2017.
010270 was instituted in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County, Florida on 09/20/2018. [APPENDIX-5018.] It was filed by Dan Newlin & Partners (“NEWLIN”). The filing fee was paid. [APPENDIX-6362-P.30.] 010270 was assigned to Judge Lisa T. Munyon. (“JUDGE MUNYON”). NEWLIN did not consult with WINDSOR, and the Complaint contained stupid errors.

NEWLIN began Discovery in the case when the Complaint was filed. [APPENDICES–5062-5063-5064-5065.]
On 10/10/2018, Discovery was filed by the DEFENDANTS,

but unsigned. [APPENDICES-5066-6304.] DISREGARD.¹ Answers to Interrogatories were also unsigned. [APPENDICES-5068-5069.]

DISREGARD.

On 11/16/2018, the DEFENDANTS filed Answers to Admissions, and both were signed with signed Certificates of Service as well. [APPENDICES-5070-5071.] So, the DEFENDANTS know how to sign.
But the Answers contain false statements and evade providing valid answers. [APPENDIX-5070–#3-#4-#6.] [APPENDIX-5071–#6-#8.] DISREGARD.

After NEWLIN was terminated, WINDSOR sought additional discovery. [APPENDICES-6319-6320-6321-6322-6323-6324-5052-5053-5057-5058-5051.]
Virtually everything filed by the DEFENDANTS in 010270 has been unsigned and violates the Rules. APPENDIX-5019 is a

Unsworn statements must be disregarded by this court. This NOTICE will be used each time. APPENDIX-6410 shows all filings are unsworn.

DOCKET, and a check of filings by the DEFENDANTS will show them unsigned. APPENDIX-6410 is an analysis of every filing by the DEFENDANTS. It shows all 97 unsigned. These must be disregarded by the court in considering FACTS.

The DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned ANSWER on 10/10/2018. [APPENDIX-5021.] It contains LIES.
010270 was transferred to Judge John Marshall Kest (“JUDGE KEST”) on 08/25/2020 [APPENDIX-6351], and he approved an amended complaint on 10/20/2020. [APPENDIX-5082-08/19/2020.] [APPENDIX-5020-10/10/2020.]
010270 is about auto negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, dishonesty, abuse, corruption, and the destruction of WINDSOR’s health and life.
Case#010270 has been pending for five years with seven Defense attorneys and four trial settings [APPENDICES-5023-5024-5025-5026.]
On 02/05/2019, NEWLIN took a one-hour Deposition of LONGEST. WINDSOR was not notified of the Deposition, and the information he needed was neither sought nor obtained by NEWLIN. [APPENDICES-5075-6241.]

On 04/08/2019, WINDSOR’s Deposition was taken. In a stunning change, a NEWLIN attorney actually notified him of the date and time. [APPENDIX-6242.]
On 10/04/2019, a Mediation was held. It was a complete waste of time. The DEFENDANTS’ attorney claimed he was unfamiliar with the case, and another NEWLIN attorney was definitely unfamiliar with the case.
On 02/26/2020, a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for WINDSOR was filed by NEWLIN. [APPENDIX-6409.]
On 03/19/2020, WINDSOR terminated NEWLIN [APPENDICES–5049-5050] because WINDSOR was completely unhappy with their work and lack of work.
On 03/19/2020, an ORDER confirmed removal of NEWLIN as WINDSOR’s attorney. [APPENDIX-5050.]
WINDSOR began representing himself Pro-Se. He is not an attorney, but he has independently studied law and has represented himself in various actions for over 25-years.
When WINDSOR obtained the files from NEWLIN’S firm, he discovered an even worse job than he had anticipated. He began work on problems with motions to compel interrogatories, compel

production, and objections to admissions. The DOCKET shows this work. [APPENDIX-5019.]

On 06/24/2020, WINDSOR also filed Motions for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court against both LONGEST and BOISE. [APPENDICES-5055-5056.]
On 06/24/2020, WINDSOR filed a sworn affidavit swearing as to the events of 05/05/2017. [APPENDIX-5054.]
On 07/01/2020, WINDSOR filed Amended Motions for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court against both LONGEST and BOISE. [APPENDICES-5059-5060.]
On 07/07/2020, a Hearing was held. [APPENDIX-6314.] The request to File an Amended Complaint was denied without prejudice and claimed paragraphs 15-21-22-23-24-25-26-46 were improperly plead and that the matters are barred from this litigation. On the Motion to Compel Incomplete Answers to Interrogatories, the Court required a better answer to interrogatory #8 and allowed the DEFENDANTS 20-days to answer. [APPENDICES-6315-6316-6317.]
On 07/20/2020, the DEFENDANTS filed one of the most frivolous motions in the history of Florida civil courts.

DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to Determine if Plaintiff William Windsor is Mentally Competent to Represent Himself was filed. [APPENDIX-5061.] It’s as FRIVOLOUS as can be as part of their campaign of INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. DISREGARD.

It became clear that the DEFENDANTS knew they could get away with anything. The attorneys repeatedly sought dismissal because they knew they would lose on the facts of the case. They also dreamed up outlandish motions to dismiss because they knew this would distress WINDSOR.
On 07/27/2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing and Strike Competency Motion. [APPENDIX-5077.] It was denied. [APPENDIX-5078.]
DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Obey USDC 02/12/2018 Order [APPENDIX-6411.] WINDSOR did not violate a federal court order, and that is not a state court issue. The USDC order provided only none sanction an only by the USDC. This Motion was about as frivolous as the motion to declare the Plaintiff incompetent.
The DEFENDANTS filed over a dozen requests to dismiss

in 010270 – all baseless, yet the judges let them get away with it. They have claimed a plaintiff can have his case dismissed if he is old and has some memory challenges; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if a party uses social media; they have claimed use of social media violates the COURTROOM Decorum Policy; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if a member of the press for the last 57 years continued to publish; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if the Plaintiff is in bankruptcy and has no money to pay for an attorney; a case can be dismissed if a party files evidence. On top of all this, they lie and lie and lie.

On 07/27/2020, the DEFENDANTS each filed a motion to dismiss due to a claim of failure to obey a USDC Order. [APPENDIX-6411.]
On 07/28/2020, an Order was issued Denying WINDSOR’s Motion to Cancel 08/04/2020 Hearing and Motion to Strike DEFENDANTS’ Emergency Motion to require WINDSOR to Comply with the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. [APPENDIX-5078.].
WINDSOR’s motions were either ignored or denied with no legal or factual basis. See the 010270-DOCKET for other filings as

there is not sufficient word count to address here. [APPENDIX-6399.]

None of the exhibits presented by the DEFENDANTS in 010270 were authenticated as required by the Rules. The ONLY sworn or verified statements in five years are in APPENDIX-5139, so there is nothing to discuss about Facts when the only facts in the case are from WINDSOR.
On 07/30/2020, WINDSOR filed First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Notices of Filing Exhibits. [APPENDICES-5080-5081-5083-5084-5085.] These exhibits provided evidence in opposition to DEFENDANTS’ Emergency Motion to Determine Competency and Enforce Adherence and for Sanctions and/or were in opposition to the 08/04/2020 hearing. Theses exhibits prove false claims in the DEFENDANTS’ Motions.
On 08/04/2020, LONGEST and BOISE filed a Motion for Protective Order [APPENDIX-5091.]
On 08/11/2020, Orders were issued denying WINDSOR’s Motions for Sanctions Against LONGEST and BOISE for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-5096-5097.] These Orders are outrageous. WINDSOR presented evidence of 196 violations.

On 08/11/2020, WINDSOR filed a Response to Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Strike. [APPENDIX-5094.]
On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed Exhibits in Opposition to DEFENDANTS’ 07/20/2020 Motion to Dismiss for use at 08/25/2020 Hearing. [APPENDICES-5100-5101-5102.]
On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed a signed Request for Judicial Notice as to many cases. [APPENDIX-5099.]
WINDSOR filed motions for sanctions with law and evidence galore, and the judges ignored them and then claimed WINDSOR violated the rules.
On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed an extensive Memorandum of Law on filing restrictions. [APPENDIX-5103.]
On 08/19/2020, an ORDER Granting Protective Order was issued on All Discovery Pending Determination of Competency and Dismissal. [APPENDIX-6333.]
WINDSOR’s Motions for Reconsideration of Order on Motion for Sanctions Against LONGEST and BOISE for Fraud on the Court were filed on 08/23/2020. [APPENDICES-6334-6335.]
On 08/20/2022, WINDSOR filed EXHIBITS for the 08/25/2020 HEARING. [APPENDICES-5104-5105.]

On 08/22/2022, WINDSOR filed Requests for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on two orders. [010270-DOCKET-187-188.] Both were ignored.
On 08/23/2020, WINDSOR signed and filed Motions for Reconsideration of orders on motions for sanctions for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-6334-6335.] WINDSOR believes the denial of these motions proves judicial corruption.
On 08/24/2020, WINDSOR verified and filed a Motion for Continuance of the 08/25/2020 HEARING. [010270-DOCKET-192.]
On 08/25/2020, WINDSOR filed his Response to the Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to determine if WINDSOR was Competent to Represent Himself and requiring him to Comply with the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. [APPENDIX-5108.] WINDSOR is not a member of the Florida Bar, and those rules CLEARLY apply ONLY to attorneys who are members.
On 08/25/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify JUDGE MUNYON. [APPENDIX-6270.] It was granted. [APPENDIX-6413.] Judge John Marshall Kest (“JUDGE KEST”) was named to replace JUDGE MUNYON. [APPENDIX-6351.]
WINDSOR’s Response to Motion for Competency, Motion

to Strike, and Motion for Sanctions was filed on 08/25/2020. [APPENDIX-5108.] This Notarized Response spelled out all the reasons the DEFENDANTS’ Motion was false, malicious, and frivolous.

On 08/29/2020, Motions for Sanctions were filed by WINDSOR to Strike Answers of BOISE and LONGEST for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-5115-5116.] 149 reasons were detailed for each of the DEFENDANTS. 298 counts!
On 09/21/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned unverified Response to WINDSOR’s Motions for Reconsideration. [APPENDIX-5122.]
On 09/28/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify/Recuse JUDGE KEST. [APPENDICES-5124-5125.] It was denied improperly on 09/30/2020. [APPENDIX-5127.]
On 10/01/2020, an ORDER was entered on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and For Sanctions. [APPENDIX-5128.] The DEFENDANTS’ Motions were DENIED with an excellent explanation.
This Order did not grant any relief to the DEFENDANTS or place any requirements on WINDSOR.

On 10/20/2020, WINDSOR actually had a motion partially granted. [APPENDIX-5020.] JUDGE KEST’s Order granted WINDSOR’s motion to amend the complaint. This gave WINDSOR two causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and cleaned up various errors by NEWLIN.
On 11/20/2020, an ORDER Denying WINDSOR’s Second Motion to Disqualify JUDGE KEST was issued. [APPENDIX-5137.]
APPENDIX-5082 contains the Third Amended Complaint approved by JUDGE KEST. It has causes of action against each Defendant for Negligence and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. [APPENDIX-5082—EXHIBIT-3-PP.12-14.]
On 10/01/2020, DEFENDANTS filed a Motion for Rehearing of Motion to Dismiss Based on Potential Miscommunication. [APPENDIX-5129.] WINDSOR responded. [APPENDIX-5130.] The Motion was denied. [APPENDIX-5131.]
On 11/03/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of JUDGE KEST. [APPENDIX-5132.] It was denied. [APPENDICES-5132-6345.]

On 11/04/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned, unverified notice of opposition to WINDSOR’s emergency motion for stay or continuance or in the alternative their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. [APPENDIX-5134.] The Opposition makes many false and malicious statements. Due to no signature and no verification, WINDSOR will not waste time responding. DISREGARD.
On 11/09/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Answer to the Amended Complaint. [APPENDIX-5022.]
On 11/09/2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration of order of JUDGE KEST dated 10/20/2020 [APPENDIX-5135.]
On 11/19/2020, WINDSOR filed a Second Verified Motion to Disqualify or Recuse JUDGE KEST. [APPENDIX-5136.] It was denied. [APPENDIX-5137.]
On 11/24/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. [APPENDIX-5138.]
On 01/01/2021, Jeffrey L. Ashton (“JEFF ASHTON”) became the “judge” in 010270. Since that date, JEFF ASHTON has entered 39 orders: APPENDICES-5144-5145-6300-5149-5152-

5155-5156-6298-6340-5180-5181-5182-5184-5185-5186-5187-

5189-5190-6296-5026-6294-6206-6207-6208-6336-6287-6234-

6237-6238-6246-6261-6262-6263-6264-6277-6278-6341-6343-

6302.

Of the 39 Orders entered in 010270, not a single order granted relief to WINDSOR. This is the work of a corrupt judge.
On 01/11/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6405 is the Transcript.]
On 01/25/2021, DEFENDANTS filed the Affidavit of Scott L. Astrin. He lied about attorney’s fees. This is the only affidavit ever filed by the DEFENDANTS in 010270. Paragraphs 6-7-8 are false and constitute perjury. [APPENDIX-5139.] The DOCKET [APPENDIX-6399] shows there is no 10/10/2020-Order.
On 01/27/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6406 is the Transcript.]
On 02/10/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6407 is the Transcript.]
On 02/17/2021, the two DEFENDANTS filed Emergency Motions to Require WINDSOR’S submissions to the court be reviewed, Approved and Signed by a Member of the Florida BAR

(“BAR MOTION”). [APPENDIX-5153.] This EMERGENCY Motion is filled with false claims. It is unsigned and unsworn. DISREGARD.

8 of the 11 pages have separate sections for Montana Litigation [PP.2-3], Northern District of Georgia Litigation [PP.3-8], Texas Litigation [PP.8-9], and Florida Litigation [PP.9-10]. The inclusion of Montana, Georgia, and Texas required significant evidence to be added to the Record by WINDSOR.

On 02/18/2021, WINDSOR filed a signed verified Emergency Motion to Strike the BAR MOTION. It was filed pursuant to Rules, Statutes, Codes, and the Constitutions of Florida and the United States of America.” [APPENDIX-5154.] APPENDIX-5154 details why this “Emergency” Motion was a sham.
On 02/23/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR’s Motion with one word “denied.” [APPENDIX-5156.]
On 02/26/2021, WINDSOR filed a signed, sworn before a notary, 93-page Memorandum of Law regarding this Order [APPENDIX-5157] and a Motion for Reconsideration of the BAR MOTION [APPENDIX-5158.] It says: “There is no basis at all for the Defendants’ BAR MOTION, and there is NO EMERGENCY. The BAR MOTION is filled with false and deceptive information that may not

be considered as it was not provided in an affidavit under oath. On 02/23/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied Windsor’s Motion. This is a FRIVOLOUS ORDER – no basis in fact or law.”

APPENDIX-5158 makes excellent points with extensive citation to law.
On 03/02/2021, JEFF ASHTON filed an Order to Show Cause. [APPENDIX-6299.] In the first paragraph, he states: “Defendants request the issuance of an Order to Show Cause….” The DEFENDANTS’ Motion did not make any such request. [APPENDIX-5153.] This is a false and malicious statement by JEFF ASHTON and is a crime. APPENDIX-5153 is THE ONLY filing by the DEFENDANTS on this issue as the DOCKET shows. [APPENDICES-5019-6399.]
On 03/03/2021, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion to require WINDSOR’S submissions to the Court be reviewed, approved, and signed by a member of the Florida Bar and Memorandum of Law and Motion to find Pro Se Plaintiff in contempt of JUDGE KEST’s Order dated 10/01/2020 and Motion for Sanctions. [APPENDIX-5159.]

On 03/02/2021, an ORDER to Show Cause for 04/05/2021 at 10:30am was issued. [APPENDIX-6299.]
On 03/12/2021, WINDSOR’s signed, verified Motion to Strike STRANGE HIDDEN DOCKET ENTRY and Memorandum of Law was filed. [APPENDIX-5160.] WINDSOR believes this “strange hidden docket entry” was the combined effort of JEFF ASHTON and the Defense attorneys to hide the BAR MOTION from WINDSOR.
On 03/12/2021, Motions to Strike Answer and Amended Answer, Enter a Decree Pro Confesso; Enter Judgment in favor of the PLAINTIFF; and Schedule the Jury Trial for Damages were filed. [APPENDICES-5161-5162.]
On 03/16/2021, WINDSOR filed evidence. [APPENDICES-5162-5164-5165-5166-5167-5168-5169-5170-5171-5172-5173-5176-5177-5178.] This evidence was filed because the DEFENDANTS made false claims about emails WINDSOR sent, so he filed every cotton pickin’ one to prove the truth. APPENDIX-5176 is a notarized affidavit from WINDSOR setting the record straight on the false claims of the attorney for the DEFENDANTS.

On 03/17/2021, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Strike Pleadings and Award Sanctions [APPENDIX-5174] and a Motion for Contempt for Violation of Rules. [APPENIX-5175].
On 03/18/2021, WINDSOR filed motions that were important to his case. [APPENDICES-6297-6328-6329-6336-6337-6338-6339.]

On 03/24/2021, JEFF ASHTON granted DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Motion for Protective Order. [APPENDIX-6340.]
On 03/25/2021, JEFF ASHTON implemented a scheme to avoid dealing with all the violations. He sua sponte entered an order without notice or an opportunity to be heard. APPENDIX-5181:

“WHEREAS, the Court, on March, 2 2021 set for hearing an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff as the why the Court should not grant Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Require Pro Se Plaintiff William Windsor’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed By A Member of the Florida Bar on April 5, 2021.

“WHEREAS, since the issuance of the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has filed twenty-six items with the Clerk of Court in this matter. Among the motions, was a request for sixteen hours of hearing time on the Order to Show Cause. Among the matters filed, are item described as affidavits or exhibits totaling one thousand six-hundred-and-seventy-pages.

“The Clerk is hereby directed to decline to file any further documents by the pro se Plaintiff unless they contain a certificate by a member of the Florida Bar that have reviewed the matter and that the filing is appropriate. This Order shall remain in effect until close of business April, 5 2021.”

Nothing filed was improper, and the evidence was necessary due to the unsworn lies of the attorneys.
This violated the right to Due Process as it was issued without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
On 04/05/2021, a hearing on the unlawfully scheduled Order to Show Cause was held. [APPENDIX-6295.]
On 04/05/2021 at 3:13p.m., an Interim Order on Pro-Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5185.] It stated that “the Court Order filed March 25, 2021 shall remain on full force and effect.” The 03/25/2021-ORDER is a void order issued in violation of Due Process as there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard.
On 04/05/2021 at 3:14p.m., an Interim Order On Pro-Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5186.] It stated that “the Court Order filed March 25, 2021 shall remain on full force and effect.” The 03/25/2021-ORDER is a void order issued in violation of Due Process.

On 04/05/2021 at 3:24p.m., an ORDER Striking Pro-Se Filings from 03/27/2021 to 04/05/2021 was issued. [APPENDIX-5187.]
JEFF ASHTON likely has schizophrenia.
On 04/06/2021, an ORDER issued on the purported Courts Rule to Show Cause Requiring Pro-Se Plaintiff Submissions be reviewed by a Member of the Florida Bar. [APPENDIX-5189.] The ‘Show Cause” was a fraud.
On 04/06/2021, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion for Final Judgment against WINDSOR for failure to pay attorney’s fees and costs in contempt of this court’s order dated 02/04/2021. [APPENDIX-5188.] This outrage was discharged in bankruptcy.
On 04/06/2021, an Amended Interim Order on Pro Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5190.]
On 09/08/2021, WINDSOR filed bankruptcy. [APPENDIX-5191.] Notices were docketed. [APPENDICES-5192-5193.] JEFF ASHTON received all of this and was totally aware of WINDSOR’s financial situation from hearings and filings.

On 08/10/2022 and 10/11/2022, WINDSOR filed REQUESTs FOR TRIAL DATE. [APPENDICES-6382-6383-6384.] APPENDIX-6384 explained that funds from 010270 would be used to pay creditors in bankruptcy.
On 10/13/2022, DEFENDANTS filed a Motion to Strike PLAINTIFFS Motion for Trial. [APPENDIX-6418.]
On 10/21/2022, a Uniform ORDER Set the Case for Jury Trial on 05/22/2023. [APPENDIX-5026.] There has been no trial.
On 10/25/2022, DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Amended Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories was filed. [APPENDICES-6385-6386.] WINDSOR objected in a sworn response. [APPENDIX-6387.]
On 12/05/2022, WINDSOR filed a Request for Conference. [APPENDIX-6394.]
12/21/2022, WINDSOR filed a Second Amended Disclosure of Expert Witnesses. [APPENDIX-6391.] On 12/22/2022, Defendants’ unsigned Disclosure of Fact Witnesses was filed. [APPENDIX-6392.] On 12/20/2022, Defendants’ unsigned Disclosure of Expert Witnesses was filed. [APPENDIX-6393.]

DISREGARD.

On 12/26/2022, WINDSOR permanently lost the use of his left hand when a fall aggravated the injuries from the accident 6 years before. [APPENDIX-6404.] Nerve Conduction Studies show that his nerves do not work to his left hand. [APPENDIX-6400.] On 03/31/2023, he had MRIs for his cervical spine and lumbar spine. [APPENDICES-5041-5042.] The Reports show significant Disc Herniation and Disc Bulges with increased size and quantity in three years. [APPENDICES-6414-6415-6516-6417.]
WINDSOR’s quality of life was ruined by the Defendants. [APPENDICES-5032-5033-5034-5035-5036-5037-5038-5039-5040-5041-5042-6400-6414-6415-6516-6417.] He has no life now other than trying to obtain medical and financial relief in this matter.
Some believe the 05/05/2017 “accident” was attempted murder because Sean Boushie (attempted murderer on a Montana Interstate in 2013) was involved according to Carrie Broussard, an eyewitness who called 911 on 05/05/2017. [APPENDICES-5044-5045-5046.] 2 WINDSOR spoke with her, and she told him she had been in contact with Sean Boushie. She then lied about it at her

WINDSOR will file audio recordings on a Flash Drive in a separate filing with the Clerk.

deposition. It was strange that no motorist tried to help WINDSOR.

It was like there was a blockade of cars behind him.

WINDSOR needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in surgery, but corrupt Judge JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR any and all Constitutional rights. The absence of due process in this case is based in part on issues presented in SC22-7648.
Jerome Wilt was an eyewitness who called 911 on 05/05/2017 after observing WINDSOR’S wreck. [APPENDIX-5047.] He was the only eyewitness other than WINDSOR because trucker LONGEST has sworn he saw nothing. [APPENDIX-5048-P.22-LL.1-2–P.19-LL.9-25–P.20-LL.1-16.]
On 01/04/2023, Jerome Wilt testified at his deposition that he saw the 18-wheeler (semi) cause the accident, and he was afraid WINDSOR was seriously injured. He described how the semi crashed into WINDSOR’s lane, lifted all four wheels of his little convertible off the ground, and spun him around 180-degrees. [APPENDIX-5048-P.8-LL7-14;P.23-LL4-25;P.24-LL1-15;P.32-LL11-25;P.33-LL1-25;P.34-LL1-25;P.35-LL1-25;P.36-LL1-24;P.43-LL 7-25;P.42-LL1,16-25;P.43-LL1-8;P.46-LL8-25;P.47-LL1-4,20-24.]
On 01/05/2023, Defendants filed an unsigned Motion for

Protective Order and Objection to WINDSOR’s Request to Not Utilize a Court Reporter and/or Stenographer at all Depositions. [APPENDIX-5194.] DISREGARD.

On 01/04/2023, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Law in Objection to Subpoena to Dr. Stephen Goll. [APPENDIX-5195.]

DISREGARD. WINDSOR observed that Dr. Goll brought a detailed typed report of the results of his examination of WINDSOR before he conducted an examination. WINDSOR has been blocked from discovery.

From the early days in the case, the DEFENDANTS violated statutes, codes, and rules. Each of the judges involved in the case has allowed them to do so with no action taken against them. WINDSOR knew he was dealing with a corrupt group of judges and extremely dishonest attorneys. But he never dreamed until recently that they would get away with stealing his life. WINDSOR has learned one valuable lesson: Use an incompetent high-profile law firm because the facts and the law are very much secondary to whose palm has been greased.
DEFENDANTS’ Motion for Protective Order on All Discovery Pending Determination of Competency and Dismissal was

filed 08/04/2020. [APPENDIX-5091.] DISREGARD. There was no legal basis whatsoever for the motion to dismiss. Both DEFENDANTS filed it to defame WINDSOR with the Court and to make sure JUDGE KEST was aware that WINDSOR had been a leading activist on judicial corruption. This established extrajudicial bias against WINDSOR, someone who will fight dishonest and corrupt judges until the cows come home.

JEFF ASHTON became the judge in January 2021. He demonstrated complete bias against WINDSOR from his first involvement.
On 01/27/2021, JEFF ASHTON’s Judicial Assistant, Keitra Davis, emailed WINDSOR to set some deadlines. WINDSOR requested that the 02/02/2021 hearing be reset for another date as the deadline she set had passed. There was no response. [APPENDIX-6303.] His signed Motion provided financial information showing his sole source of income was social security and he had debts of $1,500,000.
On 01/28/2021, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration of his Emergency Motion for Stay and/or Continuance. [APPENDIX-5140.] There was no response to this

Motion or WINDSOR’s emails as was sadly routine.

On 01/30/2021, WINDSOR filed a Second Emergency Motion for Stay and/or Continuance. [APPENDIX-5141.] WINDSOR was admitted to Waterman Hospital in Tavares, Florida and spent all day on 02/02/2021 with medical personnel; he was unable to attend the hearing.
On 02/02/2021, WINDSOR filed a Notarized Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON with a Notarized Affidavit and Notarized Affidavit of Prejudice. [APPENDICES-5146-5147-5148]. It was denied on totally bogus grounds. [APPENDIX-6300.]
JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of JUDGE KEST at 10:13a.m. on 02/01/2021. [APPENDIX-5145.] Evelyn Wood in her prime could not have read the documents in three-hours-and-thirty-nine-minutes. JEFF ASHTON committed perjury when he wrote that he had reviewed the file.
On 02/01/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied the second motion for stay without explanation. [APPENDIX-5144.]
On 02/02/2021, JEFF ASHTON purportedly conducted a hearing without WINDSOR. [APPENDIX-6301.] WINDSOR was

hospitalized and was denied the opportunity to defend himself and to show that the attorneys for the DEFENDANTS had likely committed fraud upon the court with their outrageous request for attorney’s fees. The “Minutes” indicate that there was no testimony, and there was no evidence presented. JUDGE KEST only awarded attorney’s fees on two motions to compel. JEFF ASHTON allowed Scott L. Astrin to inflate the bill, and he did not have to provide any proof.

On 04/01/2021, WINDSOR filed a second Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. [APPENDICES 6396-6397.] APPENDIX–6396 is file-stamped by the Clerk of Court, but note on the Docket [APPENDIX-6362] that JEFF ASHTON had these filings removed from the court’s DOCKET. This is a crime – Florida Criminal Statute 839.13. Complete evidence was provided to the Orange County Sheriff on 03/10/2023, and a case was opened.
JUDGE MUNYON, JUDGE KEST, JEFF ASHTON, and the Defendants and their attorneys are responsible for this bankruptcy. If it was not for their dishonesty and corruption, WINDSOR would have received enough money from 010270 to avoid the costs and stigma of bankruptcy. He might be able to walk. He could regain

the use of his left hand. He could have teeth.

On 09/08/2021, WINDSOR filed an Application for Bankruptcy. [APPENDIX-5191.] [APPENDIX-5192.] [APPENDIX-5193.]
On 08/10/2022, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay to allow WINDSOR to pursue 010270 as his bankruptcy plan is to pay all debts in full with recovery from 010270. [APPENDIX-6363, P.1.]
WINDSOR tried unsuccessfully for many months to find an attorney to represent him in 010270. Then he tried to find an attorney who would review and sign his pleadings at low cost, and no one would. He even ran ads on Craigslist. [APPENDIX-6364.]
On 12/15/2022, WINDSOR’s bankruptcy attorney, Jeff Badgley, reluctantly agreed to review, sign, and approve his filings.
On 01/10/2023, WINDSOR’s Application for Indigent Status was approved by the Clerk. [APPENDIX-5197.] JEFF ASHTON received this and had detailed data about WINDSOR’s financial disaster through his Indigence Filing and his Bankruptcy Filing.
On 01/17/2023, the DEFENDANTS’ attorney, Jonathan Blake Mansker, called WINDSOR’s Bankruptcy attorney and

informed him that he would pursue sanctions and charges against him if he continued to sign WINDSOR’s pleadings. [APPENDIX-6398.] DISREGARD. WINDSOR believes he did this solely to conspire with JEFF ASHTON to damage WINDSOR.

On 01/24/2023, WINDSOR conducted an inspection of what was supposed to be the truck that hit him on 05/05/2017. Attorney Jonathan Blake Mansker lied and concealed the actual truck by using a different truck. APPENDIX-6401 is the fake truck. APPENDIX-6402 is the truck WINDSOR photographed after he was hit on 05/05/2017.
WINDSOR filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 01/31/2023 on the issue of liability for Negligence. [APPENDIX-6209.] It was never heard.
On 02/10/2023, the DEFENDANTS’ attorney filed DEFENDANTS’ Amended Motion to Strike Improperly Named Individuals from Plaintiff’s Witness List and Motion for Sanctions Against Both WINDSOR and Attorney Jeffrey L. Badgley for “Continuing to File Frivolous and Repetitive Filings.” [APPENDIX-6222-P.3.] There was nothing frivolous or repetitive. [APPENDIX-5026.] The judges and attorneys identified as witnesses

are witnesses to two causes for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Amended witness lists are authorized by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.190 (e).

On many occasions, WINDSOR informed JEFF ASHTON that he was in bankruptcy and could not afford an attorney. JEFF ASHTON was well aware of the bankruptcy filing, the stay, and WINDSOR’s approval as Indigent. See, for example, SOC ¶¶20, 119, 120, 128, 130, 138, 146, 147, 148, 151.
On 02/16/2023, WINDSOR filed a Verified Affidavit regarding emails. [APPENDIX-6365.]
On 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered a sua sponte order REVOKING WINDSOR’s right of self-representation

(“02/21/2023-ORDER”). [APPENDIX-6237.] The 02/21/2023-ORDER shows clearly that there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. It says: “…having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully informed, finds as follows….” [APPENDIX-6237-P.2.] the Order says:

The content of the order is false. The history of this case is replete with corrupt acts by JEFF ASHTON and wrongdoing by the attorneys for the DEFENDANTS. JEFF ASHTON never has any

facts to back up his lies, such as “review by counsel have utterly failed” and “plaintiff threatened a witness during cross examination.” Jeff Badgley did a fine job reviewing the filings; no fault was ever identified. WINDSOR never threatened a witness. This is proven by WINDSOR’s sworn affidavit and the Transcript. WINDSOR has never threatened, harassed, or abused. He has zealously represented himself, which is something legal representatives are supposed to do. (ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility.)

On 02/24/2023, WINDSOR filed a Complaint Against JEFF ASHTON with the State of Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. There is no copy in the APPENDIX as the Commission requires confidentiality. [APPENDIX-6366.]
On 02/28/2023, WINDSOR terminated his bankruptcy attorney, Jeffrey Badgley, because he refused to sign documents after he was threatened by the DEFENDANTS’ attorney and Mansker filed charges against him. [APPENDICES-6371-6372-6373.] WINDSOR had prepaid Jeffrey Badgley in 2018, and he cannot afford an attorney. He has to represent himself in bankruptcy court.

On 03/08/2023, WINDSOR discovered evidence of a crime by JEFF ASHTON. On 04/01/2021 at 05:29:58 a.m., Windsor had filed his second written effort to get Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton removed. [APPENDIX-6367.] He found the Orange County Clerk’s Proof of Filing and Service, filed 04/01/2021 at 05:30a.m. [APPENDIX-6368.] He went to the Clerk’s website and discovered it was NOT ON THE DOCKET. [APPENDIX-6369.] WINDSOR has a 2021 pdf of the Docket when it showed that filing! [APPENDIX-6370–04/01/2021.]
JEFF ASHTON is dishonest. He stole or had someone steal those documents. He has obstructed justice.
On 03/10/2023, WINDSOR filed a criminal complaint against JEFF ASHTON with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and a case was opened. JEFF ASHTON violated Florida Statutes 839.13 – Falsifying records.
On 03/20/2023 at 2:47p.m., WINDSOR, a Party, filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton [APPENDICES-6375-6374]. These were both file-stamped and docketed by Tiffany Moore Russell, the Clerk of Court. [APPENDIX-6362–DOCKET,P.2.]

WINDSOR sent them directly to her by mail since he was being blocked from filing.

On 04/01/2023, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Appellant’s Brief. [APPENDIX-6376.] There was no response. [APPENDIX-6377.]
On 01/10/2023, the Clerk of Court declared WINDSOR INDIGENT after review of his Application for Insolvency and Indigency. [APPENDIX-5197.] JEFF ASHTON received this and was totally aware of WINDSOR’s financial situation.
On 02/01/2023, WINDSOR executed a sworn affidavit in 010270 detailing the 05/05/2017 accident. [APPENDIX-6211.] 3
APPENDIX-6237 is a 02/21/2023 Order (“02/21/2023-ORDER”) “revoking Plaintiff’s right to self-representation.” It was entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The 02/21/2023-ORDER indicates WINDSOR, the Plaintiff in 010270, was given 30 days to obtain counsel. The 02/21/2023-ORDER was perhaps issued in an effort to head off the Third

Exhibits to affidavits and some motions and responses may be accessed on the Docket of 2018-CA-010270-O.

Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON [APPENDICES-6244-6245.] The 02/21/2023-ORDER is filled with false claims.

APPENDIX-6246 is the 03/22/2023 Order (“03/22/2023-ORDER”) striking and denying WINDSOR’s Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON docketed at 11:22:45 am. The 03/22/2023-ORDER falsely claimed it was a violation of the court’s order of 02/21/2023, but Florida Statutes do not require a party to have representation on a motion to disqualify. And, the 03/22/2023-ORDER does not prohibit WINDSOR from filing; it only applies to the Clerk, and it does not attempt to unlawfully restrict the statute. [APPENDIX-6246-P.2.]
On 04/19/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6408.] WINDSOR has been promised a transcript by the DEFENDANTS’ attorney, but nothing has been received. WINDSOR will supplement or amend this Brief when the missing transcripts are obtained.
APPENDIX-6261 is a 04/25/2023 Order at 9:34p.m. (“04/25/2023-ORDER”) dismissing 010270 with Prejudice. The 04/25/2023-ORDER is jam packed with false, unfounded claims.

APPENDIX-6263 is the 04/27/2023 Order at 7:12p.m. (“04/27/2023-ORDER-2”) dismissing 010270 with Prejudice. It is filled with false statements. WINDSOR was legally and financially unable to hire an attorney, and JEFF ASHTON knew it.
APPENDIX-6378 is the 06/27/2023 Order of the Florida Supreme Court (“06/27/2023-ORDER”) denying any right of appeal. The 6DCA ensured that there would be no Florida Supreme Court review by intentionally issuing an unelaborated decision.
APPENDIX-5001 is the 07/18/2023 Order (“07/18/2023-ORDER”) – a “FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.” 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

WINDSOR isn’t your ordinary pro-se party. He is one of the leading authorities on pro se legal issues in America. And, he is in Chapter 13 bankruptcy where federal criminal laws are involved.
This APPEAL should be quite a simple matter for an honest court. WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights to Due Process have been violated again and again and again. Courts and judges

WINDSOR does not believe any orders have been published.

have no discretion on Due Process issues. JEFF ASHTON denied Due Process, and he loses.

This is a case of unbridled corruption. JEFF ASHTON and the attorneys involved have violated just about every rule in the book.
JEFF ASHTON’s bias is overwhelming. JEFF ASHTON has violated criminal statutes.
JEFF ASHTON, the Clerk of the Court, and the judges of the Fifth District and Sixth District have impeded, obstructed, and influenced WINDSOR’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Florida courts violate 18 U.S.C. 1519, a criminal statute.

ARGUMENT

THE DEFENDANTS NEVER FILED A LAWFUL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, SO THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES OR THE DEFENDANTS.

WINDSOR WON BY DEFAULT.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.

The DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned ANSWER on 10/10/2018. [APPENDIX-5021.]

On 11/09/2020, DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned Answer to the Amended Complaint. [APPENDIX-5022.] This lack of a signature was never corrected.
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) require a signed Answer. Without a signed Answer, there is no Answer. FRCP 1.140 says: “…a defendant must serve an answer….”
WINDSOR WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA……..
This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
The Constitutions of the United States and Florida guarantee due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Fla. Const. art. I, § 9.
Florida Constitution “9. Due process No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
“The denial of due process rights, including the opportunity to be heard, to testify, and to present evidence, is fundamental error.” Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2014). [Wanda I. Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So.3d 916 (Fla. App. 2020).]

There are many violations of Due Process identified in the Statement of the Case (“SOC”), referenced and incorporated here, but the most significant and easiest for this Court to use to grant this APPEAL are APPENDICES-6237-and-5181. APPENDICES-5185-5186-5187-5190 also violate Due Process.
APPENDIX-6237 is a 02/21/2023 Order (“02/21/2023-ORDER”) “revoking Plaintiff’s right to self-representation.” It was entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The 02/21/2023-ORDER indicates WINDSOR, the Plaintiff in 010270, was given 30 days to obtain counsel. The 02/21/2023-ORDER shows clearly that there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. It says: “…having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully informed, finds as follows:” [SOC-¶157.]
APPENDIX-5181 is a 03/25/2021 Order entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard to require Pro-Se Plaintiff WINDSOR’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed by a Member of the Florida Bar. [SOC-¶110.]

Due Process requires that citizens receive fair notice of what sort of conduct to avoid. The orders of 02/21/2023 and 03/25/2021 violated due process as there was no notice and no hearing. For legal authority, see Paragraphs 147, 129 – 142 of the Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648.
The Sixth Amendment provides the Constitutional right to self-representation. That right should be enjoyed without fear of harassment or judicial prejudice. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
JEFF ASHTON has expressed his disdain for Pro-Se parties. He has harassed WINDSOR and demonstrated extreme judicial prejudice. Consider these statements by JEFF ASHTON:
APPENDIX-6359–Transcript-P.4:8-11;P.29:3-18;P.29: 25;P.30:1-8;P.33:1-10.
On 03/19/2020, NEWLIN was removed as counsel. [APPENDIX-5050]. JEFF ASHTON falsely claimed on 04/05/2021 “this case has not proceeded at all towards trial or resolution.” There were 266 DOCKET entries in that time, including discovery efforts, motions for leave to file an amended complaint, WINDSOR

affidavits, motions for sanctions against the DEFENDANTS, two frivolous motions to dismiss the case by the DEFENDANTS, filing exhibits, recusal of JUDGE MUNYON, case management conference with JUDGE KEST, motion to recuse JUDGE KEST, JEFF ASHTON became judge, motion for reconsideration of JUDGE KEST orders, BAR MOTION by the DEFENDANTS, Memorandum of Law Regarding Pleadings signed by a Member of the Florida Bar, unlawful order to show cause, Motion to Strike ANSWER AND AMENDED ANSWER, ENTER A DECREE PRO CONFESSO; ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF; AND SCHEDULE THE JURY TRIAL FOR DAMAGES, evidence filing, motions designed to move toward trial, unlawful show cause hearing, and various bogus orders by JEFF ASHTON.

At the hearing on 4/5/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton accused WINDSOR of threatening a member of the judiciary and said it was contemptuous. This is what Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton said was a threat to a member of the judiciary (said under oath):

“352. MR. WINDSOR: “I’m going to make it my mission to expose you and Astrin.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “All right. Mr. Windsor, that is a threat against this Court —

“MR. ASTRIN: “And myself.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Mr. Windsor, there is a limit. I have let you go on at length, but you have just threatened a member of the judiciary and that is a matter which is contemptuous. No sir, would you like to withdraw that comment or would you like to leave it in the record and face contempt? Because that, sir, will not be tolerated. Threatening a member of the judiciary in a court hearing is not going to be permitted.” [EXHIBIT A – Transcript of Hearing 4/5/2021 – P. 38: 18-25, P. 39:1-6.]”

Exposing corruption is not a threat. It is a First Amendment right. It has been my vocation since 2007. I have websites, including LawlessAmerica.com, and YouTube.com/lawlessamerica. I have produced and directed a documentary film on government and judicial corruption that was presented to every member of Congress on 2/5/2003.” [APPENDIX-6245-Paragraphs-352-353.]
At the hearing on 04/05/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton falsely and maliciously accused WINDSOR of being a liar: [APPENDIX-6245-Paragraphs 357-to-360.]

“357. THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, sir, I want to reiterate what Mr. Astrin has said, that this case cannot go forward, but you’ve got to make a choice. You can either continue the way you have been, which — well, I mean, you can’t, if I grant the motion; you just can’t do anything.

“You cannot get around it by sending e-mails to my judicial assistant. We’re going to block you from communicating that way. But we are more than, more than happy to consider any motion that you file which is signed and approved by a member of the Florida Bar.

“So the motion is granted. The interim order that I filed will be extended to be a permanent order in this case. Mr. Astrin, if you would like to prepare a proposed order and send it to me, please send it in Word because I’m sure I will be making changes and additions to it.

“Send a copy of that to Mr. Windsor as well so that he will know what you submitted to me. I will submit the order. In the interim, I’m going to prepare a brief order extending my prior order until the new order is written and fully done.

“Mr. Windsor, I hope that you get an attorney involved in this case, because I think there’s a case here that needs to be litigated. But the case needs to be litigated not on personalities.

“So that is the ruling of the Court. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Astrin, I’m looking forward to seeing your proposed order.

“Mr. Windsor, I don’t — I mean, I don’t – if I ask you not to e-mail my JA anymore, will you do it?

“MR. WINDSOR: “Your Honor, I have only e-mailed her when necessary. But she is listed as one of the contacts on the E-portal and I would be happy to remove her from that –

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Mr. Windsor, you e-mailed my JA 214 times since Thursday. Since Thursday.

“MR. WINDSOR: “Absolutely not, Your Honor.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, you’re calling my secretary a liar and I know that she’s telling me the truth about that, so that ain’t going to happen. So I’ll block you from e-mail, again. If you have a lawyer that wants to communicate with us on your behalf, we will be happy to speak with him.” [EXHIBIT 4060 – P.36: 9-25; P.37: 1-25; P. 38: 1-4.]

“358. I sent three emails to Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s Judicial Assistant from Thursday April 1, 2021 to Monday April 5, 2021. THREE (3) not 214. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is a liar and calling me a liar in open court is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton does not have 214 emails as evidence, this proves he is aa damn liar. This is perjury. This is fraud upon the court.”

“359. At the hearing on 4/5/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton established his bias against me as a senior citizen and a person with a disability after I mentioned difficulty finding something in my records:

“MR. WINDSOR: “Sorry, Your Honor. I do suffer from a cognitive decline that makes it impossible for me to remember if I just took my pills.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, sir, since you’ve raised that, if you suffer from that cognitive decline so that you can — as you said you can’t remember – – you have no short-term memory, how is it that you can represent yourself if you can’t remember whether you took your pills a few minutes ago?” [EXHIBIT 4060 – P. 21: 4- 12.]

“360. Following the hearing on 4/5/2021 at 11:51 a.m., I printed the DOCKET in Case # 2018-010270-O. [EXHIBIT 4057.] It shows all of my evidence was on file at the time of the Hearing, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton refused to consider any of it.”

JEFF ASHTON said and did the following on 01/11/2023 and 02/21/2023 [APPENDIX-6245-Notarized-Affidavit-Paragraphs-382-to-385; 391-to-393]:

“382. In January 2023, a hearing was held on 1/11/2023, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton changed it to a hearing on a

Defendants’ Motion rather than the motion I had scheduled. On 1/24/2023, an Inspection of the Boise Cascade Truck was finally held. I obtained very damaging evidence against the Defendants. On 1/27/2023, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied me access to damning evidence against the Defendants and their Hired Gun Goll. He also introduced his plan to bifurcate to try to screw me more. On 1/30/2023, I filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It is a slam dunk if the judge was honest. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton entered other orders to damage me.

“383. The lowlight in February 2023 came on 2/21/2023 when Jeff Asshton purportedly entered an order on the docket sua sponte that took away my Constitutional rights. Fortunately, I was left with my shirt, pants, shoes, fingers, tongue, and member.

“384. I believe Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton will say and do anything. I never threatened a witness during cross examination resulting in the Court requiring the continuation of the deposition to be taken by a licensed attorney or before a Special Master. The transcript and tape recording show that I was polite and attempting to protect the dishonest witness by encouraging him to have legal counsel because I was preparing to sue him and had already reported him to his superiors with the Florida Highway Patrol. This was explained to Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton in open court, and he said, “I don’t believe for a second anything you said.” I cannot afford the TRANSCRIPT of the 2/10/2023 Hearing, but I do have a tape recording of the hearing that I will use in my lawsuit against Jeff Ashton to prove just how significant he is as a liar. I am also working several angles in an effort to get my eye son the other Ashley Madison emails sent by the Dog.

“385. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton, not known for his honesty a la Ashley Madison, outrageously claimed I threatened to un-necessarily prolong the questioning of the witness at trial. What a liar. I said if Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied a deposition, I would just have to ask the questions at the trial.

That was no threat. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton will prolong the trial if I continue to be denied all forms of discovery, or he will simply disallow everything I need to prove my case.

“391. Then Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton wrote on 2/21/2023 at 12:09:51 p.m.: ‘In response to the hearing set for this date Plaintiff has returned to his abusive filings. He has, in the last four days filed 1,504 documents. Plaintiff has previously been sanction for his abusive conduct in litigation. The right to self-presentation does not the right to threaten, harass and abuse.’

“392. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton made all of this up. I have not threatened, harassed, or abused in legal proceedings. I am writing a book about this case, and it will be brutally honest. I will spread the word far and wide on social media. I plan protests at the Orange County Courthouse, and I will utilize every legal means possible to expose Jeffrey L. Ashton, Lisa T. Munyon, and others.

“393. In the last FOUR days, I had filed four docket entries totaling 429 pages. If 2/17/2023 is added to the equation, it was 1,062 pages. [EXHIBIT 4091.] There was one motion and one affidavit. All the rest was evidence to prove the malicious and false claims of the Defendants. I produced every document with my right hand and index finger from emails in my email program. This was done to provide incontrovertible proof that I did nothing but file evidence that proved the attorney for the Defendants filed a false, malicious motion. Everything I filed was e-filed by me, all on pdfs, so it did not take any precious time from the Clerk’ staff. Besides, when you have evidence that is needed, it is the Clerk’s job to get it handled efficiently. If she doesn’t know how, I am available at $250 per hour to come and straighten out their systems.”

The DEFENDANTS’ motion failed to meet the requirements for the entry of an injunction. The DEFENDANTS do not have standing to seek an injunction, and the attorneys failed to

state the essential elements. JEFF ASHTON completely ignored this.

There was neither factual nor legal basis for these orders.
The DEFENDANTS’ Motion identified WINDSOR cases in Georgia, Texas, Montana, and elsewhere, but other states are not relevant.
The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172, (1951); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).
JEFF ASHTON is totally biased against WINDSOR as shown in the Statement of Case (“SOC”).
Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The disqualification rules require judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. JEFF ASHTON shows nothing but impropriety. Crosby
State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140

So. 459 (1932); State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930).

JEFF ASHTON violated Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
For due process and to secure Constitutional rights judges may not take the law into their own hands. But this is precisely what JEFF ASHTON has done. He has ignored the law, ignored the facts, and claimed laws and rules provide something they do not provide, while abusing and disadvantaging WINDSOR.
For due process to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).) JEFF ASHTON has violated Windsor’s rights by using his power to inflict his bias.
For due process, WINDSOR has the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law. Due process allegedly ensures the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights and guarantee fundamental fairness. JEFF ASHTON violated WINDSOR’s rights by using his power to ignore facts and the law.
JEFF ASHTON has interfered with the process and

violated rules for the purpose of damaging WINDSOR.

An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. JEFF ASHTON has not been honest. He has lied, committed perjury, committed crimes, and has proven to be supremely dishonest. WINDSOR has not been treated fairly in any way.
Judges have violated the Constitution and laws intentionally. (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).)
In 010270, the fundamental right to have the courts accept WINDSOR’s sworn affidavits as true has been violated. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).)
Judges haven’t shown an ounce of impartiality. (Marshall
Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).)

In 010270, judges have denied the process that is due.

(Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).)

Litigants have the right to equal protection of the law regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, handicaps, or sex. WINDSOR is 74, white, born male and still

male, Presbyterian, handicapped, and anti-corruption, and he has not received equal protection as a Pro-Se party.

WINDSOR has been denied recourse to the laws.
Judges in Florida have violated WINDSOR’s rights by using their power to inflict their bias.
Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
The Constitution guarantees WINDSOR a fair and impartial judge. Florida judges denied WINDSOR’s guarantee to inflict their extra-judicial bias.

Every person “has a constitutional and statutory right to an impartial and fair judge at all stages of the proceeding.” (Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994). (See Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037; Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted).)

Due process is supposed to guarantee basic fairness and to make people feel that they have been treated fairly.

“justice must give the appearance of justice” (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954).) (Peters v. Kiff, 407, U.S. 493, 502 (1972).)

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.” For example, in

1934, the Florida Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

Where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

Substantive due process refers to the rights granted in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. Fifth Amendment due process means substantially the same as Fourteenth Amendment due process.

Judges in Florida have a Constitutional duty to WINDSOR. Florida judges have violated Windsor’s civil and constitutional rights under color of law.

“[t]rial before an ‘unbiased judge’ is essential to due process.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted). (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972).

The due process clauses of both the Florida and the

United States Constitutions guarantee a party an impartial and disinterested tribunal in civil cases. (Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1613 (1980).)

Partiality in favor of the government may raise a defendant’s due process concerns. In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).

Judges in Florida have effectively denied WINDSOR’s rights of the equal protection under the law in Article VI of the Constitution. Their actions prove that they have exercised their power in this and other actions for their own personal purposes rather than the will of the law.

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990).

The orders issued by judges in Florida suggest the appearance of animosity towards WINDSOR.
These latest purported orders from JEFF ASHTON deny WINDSOR his fundamental Constitutional right of access to the courts, “unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008).) Meaningful access to the courts is a constitutional

right. (Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc).) [emphasis added.]

In Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc), the Court held that the district court’s injunction was overbroad and violated a prisoner’s right to access courts because it barred him from filing any case in the district court without an attorney, which, given the facts of his case, effectively prevented him from filing any future suit. 792 F.2d at 1070-71. WINDSOR’s financial situation, bankruptcy, and the wrongdoing of JEFF ASHTON prevented him from any involvement in his case. Surely this is unheard of.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR FLORIDA STATUTE TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO DENY OR REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.

There is no statute or rule to allow a judge to revoke a Plaintiff’s right to represent himself in a civil case.
But on 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered an order (02/21/2023-ORDER) [APPENDIX-6237] without notice of any type.

JEFF ASHTON cited his authority for the 02/21/2023-ORDER as Lowery v. Kaplan 650 So. 2d 114 (4 DCA 1995) and Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate 613 So, 2d 515 (3DCA 1993). Both of these cases involved criminals and indicate that notice and an opportunity to be heard are requirements. There was no notice or opportunity to be heard in this matter. “THIS MATTER” didn’t “come before the Court.” This is a sua sponte order that is void.
There was no order to show cause. [APPENDIX-6362.] There was no opportunity to be heard.
WINDSOR believes JEFF ASHTON issued the 02/21/2023-ORDER because he knew WINDSOR couldn’t afford an attorney, so this set him up for dismissal of 010270.

THE 03/22/2023-ORDER VIOLATES FLORIDA STATUTE 38.10, THE GENERAL FLORIDA DISQUALIFICATION STATUTE.
This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
Florida Statute 38.10 authorizes a “party” to seek disqualification of the judge. WINDSOR is the Plaintiff, a party to the action. [APPENDIX-6362–DOCKET,P.1.]

On 03/20/2023 at 2:48p.m., WINDSOR, filed an Affidavit of Prejudice of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. It was docketed on 03/21/2023. APPENDICES-6244-6245 provide an excellent look at all the wrongdoing of JEFF ASHTON, so it will not be re-typed here.
There is nothing in Florida Statute 38.10 that requires a party to be represented by counsel or that allows a judge to deny a party the right to seek this relief.
WINDSOR’s motions were premised on Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule-2.330, Florida Statutes, and the Florida CJC, all of which require that a judge disqualify himself once a party has established a reasonable fear that he will not obtain a fair hearing. See Florida Rules of Judicial Admin 2.160; Fla. Stat. §§ 38.02, 38.10; Fla. CJC, Canon 3-B (7) and E. 2 I.
JEFF ASHTON violated this law because he proceeded further in the case.

THE CASES CITED BY JUDGE JEFF ASHTON DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AS HE DID.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
There is no legal authority to allow a judge to revoke a Plaintiff’s right to represent himself in a civil case. But on 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered the 02/21/2023-ORDER without notice of any type. The 02/21/2023-ORDER has no legal authority. [APPENDIX-6237.]
The arbitrary and irrational exercise of power by JEFF ASHTON violated WINDSOR’s due process rights.
The rights of parties cannot be taken without notice and opportunity for hearing. The action by JEFF ASHTON was unreasonable and unjust. WINDSOR did nothing wrong. JEFF ASHTON’s purported complaint was that WINDSOR was filing evidence after being denied an evidentiary hearing after the Defendants filed and submitted to the Court 275 pages of documents. [APPENDIX-6362—DOCKET-02/10/2013.] The attorney for the DEFENDANTS continued to lie about this and everything. As WINDSOR was not allowed to submit evidence at a hearing, then a sworn affidavit authenticating the exhibits was the only other option. JEFF ASHTON chose to ignore the Constitution,

due process, statutes, rules, and codes because his sole purpose was to damage WINDSOR.

THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY WINDSOR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
American courts have secured the right to represent oneself in court since the beginning of the nation. The Judiciary Act of 1789 recognized the right to personally present oneself in court without a lawyer. In 1948, this right was reaffirmed under U.S.C. § 1654 which reads: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
The United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and a massive amount of case law provide WINDSOR has the right to represent himself in court.
In Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley wrote: “It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the

Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”

See also Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603.
1. The Florida Supreme Court says this: “A person should not be forced to have an attorney represent his legal interests if he does not consent to such representation. All citizens in our state are also guaranteed access to our courts by Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968).” [Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978).] [emphasis added.]
Several courts have written: “The right to represent oneself in a civil proceeding is on a scale of importance equal to the right of trial by jury.”
Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association reaffirm this right.
S. Supreme Court Cases reaffirming the right to self-representation include: Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824); Haines v. Kerner (1972); Faretta v. California (1975); Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905; Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233; Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938); Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882); Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894); Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893); Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885); Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332. Other relevant federal opinions include Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996); Cannon v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694; Geiler v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286; and Gonzalez v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374;

VII. THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OTHER FILINGS BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNSIGNED AND MUST BE DISREGARDED AND CONSIDERED VOID.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”

The purported motions of the DEFENDANTS are unsigned. They must be disregarded and stricken. [APPENDIX-6410.]
A signature is not optional. The signature is much more than a person’s name. Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration dictates the requirement:

“Every document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record….

Therefore, there is no proof that any attorney read the motions, and there is no certification that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support the motions.
There are many cases where pleadings were declared nullities because they were not properly signed.

See Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding a notice of appeal signed by a non-attorney corporate officer a nullity); Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (reversing summary judgment in favor of corporate housing authority, holding its complaint signed and filed by a non-attorney void); Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966) (affirming trial court’s striking of plaintiff corporation’s complaint holding the complaint a nullity where it was filed and signed by the corporation’s non-attorney president).

But in this case, there are no signatures at all except on one affidavit about legal fees!
This Court must strike the unsigned documents.
None of the exhibits have been authenticated, so all must be disregarded.

VIII. THIS CASE INVOLVES VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed by the “de novo” standard of review.
Void Orders and Void Judgments have no legal force or effect. For legal authority, see Paragraphs 129–142 of the Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648. [APPENDIX-6360.]
THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY WINDSOR THE RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed by the “de novo” standard of review.
The law is clear that a PARTY has that right. JEFF ASHTON had no authority to remove Plaintiff WINDSOR as a PARTY and did not.

JEFF ASHTON has violated Windsor’s Constitutional rights. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172, (1951); Marshall Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).

Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930).

JEFF ASHTON has lied and demeaned Windsor in open court hearings. WINDSOR has tape recordings of JEFF ASHTON if this Court would like to hear them. They prove his lies in his court orders.
An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. JEFF ASHTON has not been honest. He has violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the CJC.

THE ACTIONS OF JEFF ASHTON AND THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. 1519.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Florida courts violate 18 U.S.C. 1519:

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

JEFF ASHTON and the Clerk of the Court have made false entries in the Record. Filings have disappeared from the DOCKET.
JEFF ASHTON, the Clerk of the Court, and the judges of the Fifth District and Sixth District have impeded, obstructed, and influenced WINDSOR’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. WINDSOR’s documented bankruptcy plan has been to represent himself Pro-Se

in 010270 and get a jury award more than sufficient to pay all creditors in full.

By claiming WINDSOR has to pay attorneys when he has no money or access to money due to bankruptcy and the control of all of his assets by the Trustee, these people have violated 18 U.S.C. 1519.
By denying WINDSOR’s legal rights and dismissing the case because he can’t pay an attorney, JEFF ASHTON has unlawfully blocked WINDSOR’s reorganization plan which is a sure winner. If a man named Leroy gets $990,000 from being rear-ended at a stop light, WINDSOR should receive millions for permanent disability from being sent airborne by an 18-wheeler at 70 miles per hour. [APPENDIX-6361.]
JEFF ASHTON AND THE CLERK OF COURT DESTROYED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED FLORIDA STATUTE 839.13.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”

“…if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off,

discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.”

See SOC ¶¶142-and-161.
The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Clerk of the Court violated Florida Statute 839.13.

XII. THERE ARE NO FACTUAL FINDINGS TO SUPPORT DISMISSAL.

This is a fact issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
As the Statement of Case and APPENDIX show, there are no factual findings. Judges are not authorized to make up facts.

XIII. JEFF ASHTON COMMITTED MANY VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, RULES, AND CODES

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
There were so many errors in the process and procedures that resulted in an “unfavorable” decision that there is

too much to repeat. All of the pages above are referenced and incorporated here.

An injunction may not be issued to block a legal act. It is legal for WINDSOR to represent himself. It is legal for a person in bankruptcy to represent himself when authorized by the federal bankruptcy court.
The action of JEFF ASHTON is an injunction, and an injunction may not be issued to block a legal act.
The Court abused its discretion by denying WINDSOR the ability to obtain needed discovery. WINDSOR was denied due process. The Judge repeatedly denied discovery requests that were essential in support of WINDSOR’s case.
WINDSOR was denied the opportunity to depose anyone from BOISE. WINDSOR was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Trooper Linzmeyer.
The Court allowed the DEFENDANTS to abuse discovery at every turn.
The abuse of the legal system and WINDSOR in this case is staggering. There are many, many cases of perjury by the DEFENDANTS and JEFF ASHTON. Attorneys for the

DEFENDANTS have committed a significant number of violations of rules, ethics and the law. THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO SO BY JUDGE ASHTON! They have lied and cheated, and they have been rewarded as a result, while punishing WINDSOR day-in and day-out.

The DEFENDANTS deceived the Court Record with complete, total fabrications. Their attorneys have lied repeatedly apparently knowing that they could get away with it.
This case has False pleadings, altered documents, perjury galore, destruction of evidence, and plain old corruption.
THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO REQUIRE WINDSOR TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR HAVE HIS CASE DISMISSED, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS IN CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY.

JEFF ASHTON had no legal basis to require a bankrupt Plaintiff to hire an attorney. The Trustee controls all assets, and WINDSOR’s sole source of income was Social Security Retirement that was insufficient to over all of his mandatory bills. WINDSOR’s written Plan was to represent himself Pro-Se so there would be no expense to the Estate. The Trustee was unwilling to act as WINDSOR’s attorney or signer.

JEFF ASHTON didn’t care. He had one and only one goal: Bury WINDSOR and save the DEFENDANTS millions of dollars.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, WINDSOR respectfully urges the Court to enter an Order granting this APPEAL; vacate all orders of dismissal; vacate all Orders of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton; remove Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton from 010270; grant WINDSOR’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and instruct the new judge to proceed in a manner consistent with this Court’s decision.

WINDSOR seeks action by this Court in compliance with 18 U.S.C. 4.

WINDSOR seeks an order providing any other relief that this Court feels is proper.

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, SD 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by Electronic Mail or United States Postal Service:

Matthew J. Conigliaro

Carlton Fields, P.A.

4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33607

229-4254, mconigliaro@carltonfields.com, devans@carltonfields.com, tpaecf@cfdom.net

Blake Mansker, Scott Warburton

Adams | Coogler, P.A.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1600

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2329

Telephone: 561-478-4500 — Fax: 561-478-7847

bmansker@adamscoogler.com, rurban@adamscoogler.com,

swarburton@adamscoogler.com, and ajohnson@adamscoogler.com

Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton, Keitra Davis

Orange County Courthouse

425 N Orange, Courtroom 18-C, Orlando, FL 32801

407-836-2008, 37orange@ninthcircuit.org, ctjakd3@ocnjcc.org,

Barry5515@gmail.com

Roberta Walton Johnson

General Counsel for Clerk of the Circuit Court

Orange County Florida, Orange County Clerk of Courts, PO Box

4994, 425 N. Orange Ave, Suite 2110 Orlando, FL 32802, 407-836-6324, ADM-ContactAdminDiv@mvoraneeclerk.com, roberta.waltonjohnson@nyorangeclerk.com

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

xii

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that I have complied with Rule 9.210(a)(2)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Brief contains 12,966 words.

The cover sheet, the tables of contents and citations, the certificates of service and compliance, and the signature block for the brief’s author shall be excluded from the word count and page limits in subdivisions (a)(2)(A)–(a)(2)(D). For briefs on jurisdiction, the statement of the issues also shall be excluded from the page limit in subdivision (a)(2)(A). All pages not excluded from the computation shall be consecutively numbered.

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

xiii

VERIFICATION

My name is William M. Windsor. My date of birth is October 2, My address is 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108, Lincoln County, USA.

Pursuant to Florida Statute 92.525, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

Motion for Rehearing filed at U.S. Supreme Court

On October 26, 2023, a Motion for Rehearing filed at U.S. Supreme Court by Bill Windsor. It was filed by Bill Windsor.

From March 2006 to the present, federal judges have acted in a corrupt manner and have committed a variety of felonies to damage Bill Windsor.

On May 15, 2023, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition was filed with the United States Supreme Court by Pro-Se Windsor.

Each year, approximately 8,000 petitions are filed, and all but an average of 180 are automatically denied.

Jake called Windsor from the office of Justice Clarence Thomas to say the Petition was docketed and would be considered by all nine of the justices. Windsor thought this was just a courtesy extended to all 8,000, but Jake explained that Windsor’s was one of about 180 from the 8,000 or so submitted that were deemed warranted for full consideration.

Jake was unaware of any Pro-Se party who ever had their request granted by the Supreme Court. Windsor found there had been one and only one in 1971.

On July 20, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court Docket showed the Petition was to be considered on September 26, 2023. “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.”

On October 2, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court Docket indicates the Petition was denied. “Petition DENIED.”

SICKENING!!! Windsor has never received a letter. All the Clerk’s Office would finally say is that a letter was sent with one word: DENIED. There was no order issued.

There was no opinion issued, but there has to be. Here’s the process explained by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value.” In fact, the Court accepts approximately 180 of the more than 8,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

Of the cases remaining after thousands are disposed of by not meeting the requitred criteraa, the Justices screen the problems closely—by a process they explain freely in outline. They meet in a conference room as secret as any in government. The Court keeps private matters private. Reporters may speculate; but details of discussion are never disclosed, and the vote is revealed only when a decision is announced. No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as “doorkeeper,” sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door.

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority. Before each Justice is a copy of the day’s agenda. Each decides when he or she should refrain from taking any part in a case.

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants (and the almost never involved Pro-Se parties) are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Supreme Court historical documents state: “It acts only on matters of public record; it hears counsel’s arguments in public; all its orders and opinions are on the record; all materials presented to the Court for reaching its decisions are available to the public.

“All conference decisions are published. The disagreements among the Justices are fully exposed to the public in the written opinions, and on occasion the language of dissent becomes vehement.”

See the U.S. Supreme Court Docket for proof of the filings —

Windsor gave up on ever receiving this letter, and if he had received such an outrage, his motion for rehearing would be due the 27th. So, off it goes on October 26, 2023 for overnight delivery. Motion for Rehearing filed at U.S. Supreme Court by Bill Windsor

Windsor should be the second person in history and the first person in 52 years to have a Pro-Se Petition granted. There is no legal basis whatsoever for it to be denied. There is no legal basis for a petition that is considered to be denied with one word. There is no legal authority for a letter. There is no legal authority to conceal the vote.

The proper decision in this case should be a landmark decision for Pro-Se parties and those unable to afford to even be considered.

Windsor is demanding a grant of his Petition or an order with a full opinion and the votes of each of the nine justices. Windsor will file civil and criinal charges against all who voted against it. If this proves to be fraud by the Clerk’s Office, he will go after the Clerk.

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not a lawyer. 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.

Facebook Groups Battling Corruption

Bill Windsor is a member of these Groups that are battling corruption and INjustice. So far, he has calculated 495,243 Members with 111 Groups yet to be calculated.

You are encouraged to support these Groups:

# Group Name and Link…………………………….. Members

1	18th Judicial Circuit Court Corruption, Fraud, Racketeering/RICO, Cover-ups	991
2	4 Family Justice
3	A LIST OF ALL MY GROUPS FOR MOTHERS AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS!	1600
4	A.I.B. Radio with Rod Class & Team Fan Group
5	ABC Investigate CPS #FOSTERWAR
6	Abused Foster kids #FOSTERWAR
7	Accountability For Ryan Ferguson
8	Activist Community Classifieds
9	ACTUAL INNOCENCE
10	Adoption Truth and Transparency Worldwide Information Network
11	Advocates Against CPS Corruption	699
12	AFFIDAVITS OF TRUTH
13	AGAINST CPS/FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION	9800
14	AGAINST CPS/FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION 2	2900
15	Agent Gaia – Anti-corruption Cell	346
16	ALARM – Advocating Legislation for the Adoption Reform Movement
17	Alienation Anonymous
18	Alleghany County Copwatch
19	Amarillo,Texas Parental Alienation Awareness	69
20	AMERICA FIRST WITH DONALD J TRUMP	71000
21	American Citizens Against Family Court Corruption And Human Trafficking	2100
22	American Fathers Liberation Army
23	Americans Against Corruption Los Angeles County	104
24	AMERICANS AGAINST FORECLOSURE ( AAF )	2600
25	Americans Fighting for Justice	144
26	Americans for a Reformed Family Court System	315
27	Americas Wrongfully Convicted
28	Among The Wolves
29	Andrew Breitbart- King of the New Media
30	ANONYMOUS GLOBAL SOLIDARITY ALLIANCE – GSA
31	Anonymous To Expose Corruption	8100
32	ANTI CORRUPTION EXPOSE FRAUD INSALUBRITE
33	ANTI OFFICIAL CORRUPTION SOCIAL JUSTICE UNDERGROUND NETWORK	121
34	Anti-Corruption Network	7900
35	ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO COMMIT THEM
36	Attorneys who Fight Child Protection Services False Accusations #FosterWar	16200
37	BCA
38	BEATING THE DRUM FOR JUSTICE FOR OUR CHILDREN!!!
39	BeLoud Erie/Niagara New York	747
40	Birthday Wishes for Little Sabrina	95
41	Boomers & Others Against Corruption in Government	11800
42	Bring back our kids #FOSTERWAR
43	Bring our Mom Betty Hayes Home	501
44	C.A.M.S (Child Abuse Must Stop)	3200
45	C.A.N. Law public notice for Pro Se’ Litigants	273
46	California DCFS/Court Watch & Support Group/cps, etcetera ALL	1700
47	California Parents Advocacy Group (CPAG)
48	California Targeted Parents
49	Camp Patriot 2015
50	CERN- Large Hadron Collider
51	CHILD ABUSE & MURDER CPS MUST REFORM	48
52	CHILD PROTECTION WILL REFORM SOOM!!!!!	3
53	Child Protective Services Endanger Child	98
54	Child Safety Advocate
55	Children’s Rights	16500
56	Christopher Slitor Memorial Page
57	CITIES OF THE WORLD
58	Citizens Against Corruption Group
59	Citizens Against Injustice And Corruption (CAIAC)	1400
60	Citizens for Criminal JUSTICE
61	Citizens that have been denied “Due Process” in the courts	603
62	Class Action Lawsuits (Minnesota only at this time)
63	Cobb County Corruption	271
64	Collection of Best Against CPS Corruption Quotes	1600
65	Colorado Corruption	141
66	Come Clean On Child Abuse	2000
67	Commission on Judicial Performance Reform Project
68	Concerned Citizens Against Corruption	1200
69	Constitution Society
70	Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
71	Continue the Fight
72	CopBlock.org Fan Group
73	CORRUPTIN IN HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
74	Corruption	2500
75	Corruption Central CA$, CP$, Police and Judges	2200
76	Corruption Crime Victims United. CCVU	372
77	Corruption in Our Local Government	21
78	CORRUPTION INJUNCTION	248
79	Corruption is the Issue!	1600
80	CORRUPTION WITHIN AMERICA !	276
81	COUNTERFEIT JUSTICE NO MORE IN THE USA! CONGRESS MUST ACT!
82	COURT FALSIFICATION BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES	36
83	Court Reform
84	COURT VICTIM NETWORK	2
85	CPS & Family Court Corruption #Reform	4600
86	CPS & Kangaroo Courthouse Psych Injustice TAKEDOWN!	48
87	CPS Corruption-Stop The Inhumanity!!	685
88	CPS Involvement, Past or Present, Prayer Chain	111
89	CPS Victims	742
90	CPS/FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION SUCKS !!	971
91	CPS/Family court corruption support group	357
92	CPS/FAMILY COURT Corruption Support Group Henderson County, TX	2900
93	CREATE LEGAL DOCUMENTS USING DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU
94	Criminal Injustice & Prison Reform
95	Crooked Judges	326
96	Cumberland county pennsylvania corruption civil and criminal	12
97	DANGERS AND CORRUPTION IN MODERN MEDICINE….	586
98	Daveyone FamilyLawman:(1958) Fan Club!
99	Dcf corruption	354
100	Dcyf Reform
101	Death Penalty News
102	DEVIN S INJUSTICE
103	Doll Alternative Truth
104	DON SIEGELMAN AND OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE
105	Dr Phil Expose CPS #FOSTERWAR	13100
106	draw attention to the PAS: Parental Alienation Syndrome ; issue.
107	Elder Abuse must STOP!!!
108	Ellis County Texas UNCENSORED
109	Emotional Abuse Awareness
110	END CPS CRIMES – BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY	4100
111	End Michigan Probate Corruption
112	Estate Theft Corruption Probate	305
113	Every Child Deserves Care
114	Exoneration by DNA
115	Expose Corruption, Civil Rights Violations, Judges, Cps	4000
116	Expose Fraud and Corruption in Family Court	17700
117	Exposing Corruption	1100
118	Exposing corruption in the justice system Group	195
119	Faces Of Child Abuse
120	Faces on Death Row
121	False & Compromised Domestic Violence Allegations
122	Falsely Accused Network
123	Families of the Wrongfully Convicted
124	Families United! (against CPS and Family Court corruption)
125	Family Court Corruption	124
126	family court corruption	490
127	Family Court Reform	28
128	Family Forward Project
129	Family Welfare Cooperative Membership Group
130	FATHERS RIGHTS
131	Fathers Rights (USA Group)
132	fight cps corruption	8900
133	Fight CPS in Maine	305
134	Fight DCFS Corruption	368
135	Fight for your rights
136	Fight the unconstitutional per se laws!	5
137	fightcps 2.0	257
138	FightCPS.com — Fight CPS, Fix CPS	9200
139	Fighting for Families Support Group	1700
140	Fighting for the Constitution	8400
141	First amendment audits pro constitutional rights anti color of law	2100
142	Florida Corruption/Warriors and Whistleblowers/Exposing the Truth	250
143	Florida Father’s Coalition
144	Foreclosure Fraud Discussion Group
145	Forsyth County, Georgia: LAW v. POLITICS
146	Frank Report Exposé – Family Court Corruption	156
147	Free David Camm
148	Free Hannah Overton
149	Free Larry Bones	78
150	Free Rodney Lincoln NOW!!!!
151	Free Thalia Outlaw
152	Free The Wrongfully Convicted
153	Freedom for Michael Amick
154	FREEDOM4Yankton4
155	Fruithunter Films
156	FTP= FILM THE POLICE… EVERYWHERE.. MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE
157	GD Non Attorney Pro Se Consultant	294
158	George – Injustice Talk
159	Georgia Ethics
160	Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition
161	Georgians For Constitutional Government	1600
162	GL?BAL CHILD/HUMAN TRAFFICKING WILL END (SPREAD AWARENESS) WORLDWIDE
163	Government & corruption everywhere	30
164	Government corruption/Legal child kidnapping rings. Doc’s/Cps/Dhs/MCFD.	1100
165	Grandparents against cps corruption	433
166	GRAVE INJUSTICE IN MISSISSIPPI – THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF MICHAEL LINDSEY
167	Greg Laurie we demand you expose CPS	759
168	Guardianship Court Corruption Victims 2021	222
169	Hope for Prison Inmate Families
170	I Hate CPS – (Child Protective Services)	6800
171	I Hate Liars
172	I Stand With Lou Pelletier: Free Justina!
173	I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights	449
174	Indiana – Grandparent Rights Advocates National Delegation USA
175	Injustice Anywhere – wrongful convictions
176	Injustice Everywhere – Victims of Law
177	Injustice Utah
178	Innocent Beat!! Beating the Drum for the Wrongly Accused
179	Insanity In Government Cannot Be Tolerated Anymore
180	International Association of Victims of Parental Alienation
181	ISLIP TOWN CORRUPTION	137
182	It’s all about the kids. Voices of Silence
183	J.E.R.K. O.F.F. (Judicial Ethics Reporting Knowingly Organizing Fraud to F	216
184	JACKASS JUDGES	832
185	Jade Helm 15 Research Lab
186	JAM (Judicial Accountability Movement)	5700
187	Joint Custody with an Abuser
188	Judges and Judiciary USA: 1st Amendment Politically Protected Speech	151
189	JUDICIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
190	Judicial Corruption and Separation of Power Vote Lawyers OUT!	727
191	JURY TRIALS FOR PARENTS	532
192	Justice Denied?? You Decide !!	381
193	JUSTICE FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FOR ALL CHILDREN KIDNAPPED THEIR NAMES	1800
194	Justice for Heather Lenaye Hanson #WWHD
195	Justice For Jamie Snow
196	Justice for Lawless America’s Bill Windsor	22
197	Justice For My Brother
198	Justice for Nick Christie , Murdered by LCSO Deputies	72
199	Justice for Victoria “Tori” Herr
200	Justice Reform Discussion
201	Keyboard Warriors
202	Kidnapping Cops
203	Leesburg Fl Breaking News
204	Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
205	Liberal Revolutionaries Fighting Inequality & Corruption	3000
206	Liberty and Justice for all (The Nancy Schaefer Project)	107
207	Los Angeles Superior Court Corruption	386
208	Make PARENTAL ALIENATION a crime
209	MAKING FRIENDS THROUGH LIBERTY!!!!!
210	MASSACHUSETTS MOTHERS Call To Action
211	Men’s Rights Movement
212	Men’s Space
213	Michigan government corruption	59
214	Minnesota Parental Alienation Monthly
215	Missourians Against Probate Guardianship Abuse and Corruption	196
216	National Coalition for Criminal Justice Reform
217	Neighbors Against Corruption	963
218	New England First Amendment Coalition
219	New England News Events and Commerce
220	OCCUPY CENTRAL
221	OCCUPY GLOBAL NETWORK
222	Occupy Justice
223	OCCUPY ROUND TABLE
224	Of the people, by the people, for the people	106
225	Official Jeff Havard Discussion Group
226	ok
227	Op Expose CPS Iowa #OpExposeCPS	199
228	Op Expose DHR/CPS Alabama #OpExposeCPS	498
229	OpExposeCPS Operation Expose CPS	6000
230	Oregon Fighting CPS Corruption	139
231	Parental Alienation	7900
232	Parental Alienation (moderated)
233	Parental Alienation Awareness of America
234	Parental Alienation Awareness Organization USA
235	PARENTAL ALIENATION AWARENESS, IOWA
236	Parental Alienation IS Child Abuse
237	Parental Alienation Support and Information Solution
238	Parental Revolution
239	Parenting is a Civil Right!
240	Parents against CHILD PREDATORS
241	parents against cps corruption	293
242	Parents Against CPS Corruption (PACPSC)	2000
243	Parents fighting back against CPS CORRUPTION in the U.S.	5500
244	Parents in Custody Battles Support Group	20700
245	PARENTS OF LEGALLY STOLEN CHILDREN CPS Corruption	463
246	Parents Of Murdered & Missing Children
247	Parent’s Rights Call to Action
248	Parents united
249	Parents United For The Love Of Our Children
250	Parents United to Expose DCF/CPS Corruption	1500
251	Parents” CA-CPS”, Experienced, Educated, and United	148
252	PASG – Parental Alienation Support Group
253	PASO-Arizona
254	PATRIOT INVESTIGATORS	32
255	Patriots Devoted to Freedom	6700
256	Pay it forward
257	People v Money: Big Business, Judicial Corruption, and You	1800
258	People’s Party
259	Petitions make change possible
260	PETITIONS to Restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law in the USA	887
261	PFM / Child Support Reform
262	Playing it forward
263	Police Accountability
264	POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST CORRUPTION AND FASCISM IN THE US	195
265	Police Brutality / Corruption / Excessive Force (WE ARE WATCHING)	525
266	Police Corruption And Wrongdoing
267	Police corruption bentley hospital corruption alex christianopoulos story
268	Police Shootings,Brutality,Corruption,Misconduct & Government Corruption	2700
269	Porthole To Justice Est. 2014
270	Press For Truth	6800
271	Prison Reform Movement
272	Prison Reform Unity Project
273	Prisoners and family support
274	Pro Se For All	20
275	Pro Se Litigants	61
276	Pro Se Support Group	374
277	Pro Se USA	30
278	ProSe Law School	2
279	Protest against public corruption FACEBOOK GROUP	413
280	PsychSearch
281	PUBG MOBİLE ?VS ?CLASH OF CLANS YARDIMLAŞMA
282	PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION	661
283	Race and Injustice
284	Raising Awareness of Forced Adoption and Parental Alienation
285	Reach Higher Ground
286	Red Oak Talk 2.0	8300
287	Reform Family Court/End Government Corruption	1900
288	Reform Family Law Courts	3600
289	REMEMBERING OUR ANGELS. GRAPHICS WITH LOVE
290	Remove Family And Matrimonial Court Corruption	145
291	Report Corruption In Hawaii
292	Restoring America Together	7800
293	Saving my stolen daughter…A mother’s worse nightmare turned reality.
294	Scream The News
295	SERGEANT MAJOR’S TRUTHER INFO
296	Siskiyou County Corruption and Injustices	192
297	Social Services and the Family Court (Help & Guidance) UK
298	Social Worker of the Year #FOSTERWAR
299	SOMEWHERE ELSE – SOME VERY GOOD POSTS OF WORLD-CLASS QUALITY
300	Soul awareness
301	Stand against Child Abuse
302	Standing Up For Shawn
303	State Wide Accountability for Judicial Officers	342
304	STOLEN MONTANA
305	Stop Abuse Campaign Action Team
306	Stop Abuse For Everyone
307	Stop Child Abuse.	9100
308	Stop convicting the innocent
309	Stop CPS Corruption & End Child Trafficking	108
310	Stop False Accusations Against Innocent Men
311	Stop government abuse of power
312	Stop Parent Alienation
313	STOP POLICE BRUTALITY
314	Stop Police Violence EVERYWHERE
315	STOP RECORDING FRAUD, HOLD THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ACCOUNTABLE (SECURE)
316	stop social services taking children in to care for the wrong reasons	14300
317	stopping cps dhs from taking our children	3
318	STORIES FOR OUR CHILDREN THAT HAS BEEN STOLEN BY CPS	216
319	SUI JURIS
320	Sui Juris Committe
321	Support Assange and WikiLeaks Coalition (SAWC)
322	SUPPORT WHISTLEBLOWERS	7900
323	Tactical [sovereignty], administrating the Estate & today’s Matrix.
324	Take back America :Are you in or out.The GROUP
325	TAKEN:PHOTOS OF AMERICAS CHILDREN TAKEN BY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES	5200
326	The ABQ OFFICE of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS REPORTING	100
327	The Californa Women’s Think Tank
328	THE FAMILY VIOLENCE PROJECT	593
329	The Mississippi Justice Project
330	The Original Americans Defending Freedom
331	The Outcome of How Alienation Or Court Ordered Visits Affected You
332	The people against forced adoption
333	The People Against Negligent Social Workers…	2200
334	The Pro Se’ Tech Center files	757
335	The Secret / Shadow Goverment
336	THE TRUTH IS OUT!!!
337	The Who’s Who of Family Rights
338	The Worlds Wrongfully Convicted
339	TIs Media Team
340	TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE CHILDREN-(REAL PARENTS, FIGHTING FOR CHILDREN
341	Troy Citizens United (TCU)
342	Trump’s Victory
343	Truth Finders For Justice ~ Network Free Discuss Room
344	TRUTH MOVEMENT CANADA – TMC [GSA]
345	Unite As One Group.
346	United Bikers For Unjust Causes and Tragedies
347	United Parents for Children, NY
348	Uniting and fighting. GIVE OUR CHILDREN BACK!
349	Unjustly Taken National
350	US Attorney General Save Matthew Moore
351	US Bolshevism is an enemy of human rights	192
352	USA/EU Corporate Media Lies & Deception: Betraying Own People	15600
353	UTAH 4 JUSTICE
354	Victims of Judicial Corruption—Make Your Voices Heard	1700
355	Voices for Victims-Justice 4 All
356	Wake up: The World Needs You	33200
357	WARRIORS OF LIGHT AND LIGHT KEEPERS
358	WE ARE AGAINST FAMILY COURT JUDGES
359	We Stand for Darlie Routier
360	We the People	16700
361	We the People For Donald Trump	10400
362	WE TOLD U SO
363	Welcome Home Brad Cooper
364	West coast parents united
365	When We Stand Together We Take Back America Campaign
366	WHISTLE-BLOWERS & VICTIMS FIGHTING AGAINST CPS/SS/FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION!	2100
367	WIN “Wrongfully Convicted, Inmate Support, Needs Encouragement”
368	Wrongly Convicted Group
369	Your Rights and the Law
370	YOUR VOICE… AN OIL MARKET RANT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! TIME FOR COMMON SENSE!	4

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.

Proposed Legislation to Save America Ignored by the U.S. Congress

Proposed Legislation to Save America was presented to the U.S. Congress

in 2013 by Lawless America.

It was hand-delivered by constituents. We invited them to a meeting at our hotel. This photo shows the turnout. This was completely ignored.

Here is the proposal: Word File — PDF File

Can 750 Nobodies save America? Apparently not. So, we are going for hundreds of thousands.

Please read the sections of the PDF file that apply to your interests, and email bill@lawlessamerica.com with suggested changes, additions, and deletions.

Honesty….1

Accountability & Grand Juries…..2

Immunity…..4

Judges…..4

Legal Procedures…..7

Legal Costs…..9

Legal Procedures…..10

Statute of Limitations…..13

Law Enforcement…..13

Criminal Courts…..14

Military Courts…..17

Guardianship & Elder Abuse…..18

Property & Foreclosure…..18

Children & Family Courts……18

Divorce court…..22

Domestic Violence…..22

Congress…..22

Elections…..23

Restitution…..23

William Michael Windsor will be publishing this as a book, along with your input. The book is titled “SAVING AMERICA.”

Crowd cheering about proposed legislation to Save America.

A vital part of the plan to Save America is to build an association to compete with the American Bar Association and the corrupt judges.

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 TalkShoe.com.

A summary of the plans for The Pro-Se Podcast is provided on TalkShoe.

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.

Then just click here, and then click the green “FOLLOWING” button.

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 Pro-Se-1@outlook.com to inform Bill that you have done so, and he will donate a penny to make you a member.

Benchbook for U.S. Judges – Corruption Edition

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 TalkShoe.com, or Dial: 605-562-0444 – Show ID: 7863630.

windsor-bill-1983-04-02-ranch-facebook-photo-200w

Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Please send Bill Windsor an email to Pro-Se-1@outlook.com so he can put you on his email list and won’t waste time hunting for it.

WE MUST SAVE AMERICA!

William M. Windsor

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.

Register at TalkShoe.com.

A summary of the plans for The Pro-Se Podcast is provided on TalkShoe.

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.

Then just click here, and then click the blue or green “FOLLOWING” button.

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.

Benchbook for U.S. Judges – Corruption Edition

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 TalkShoe.com, 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 Pro-Se-1@outlook.com so he can put you on his email list and won’t waste time hunting for it.

WE MUST SAVE AMERICA!

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HEARS WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR’S PETITION

MIDNIGHT SEPTEMBER 26, 2023. THE DAY HAS COME. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HEARS WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR’S PETITION.

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

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 http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

A GUIDE TO CIVIL RIGHTS LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

AN OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT

IAN D. FORSYTHE

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

105 East Robinson Street, Suite 201

Orlando, Florida 32801

Tel. (407) 425-4251

forsythe@forsythelaw.com

I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY

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.

II. ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 1983 CLAIM

(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]

III. DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES

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, Â§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. Â§ 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 Â§ 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. Â§ 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).

Thanks,

windsor bill 1970 bills us army portrait 1970 cropped 200w

William M. Windsor

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012765612346
Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#JohnEricArmstrong
#JudgeCindyErmatinger
#EllisCountyTX
#EllisCountyTexas
#LaurenKersh
#StephanieLaurenKersh
#MarkGriffith
#GriffithAndAssociates
#Corruption
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#LatoshaBolden
#ChuckEdge
#JoeFitzgerald
#JerryWhitt
#MikeMcKenna
#scumbags
#CindyErmatinger
#JudgeCindyErmatinger
#AlyssaChavez
#JoeFitzgerald
#EllisCountySheriffsOffice
#Salon180TX
#Salon180hachie
#salon180
#PatrickWilson
#ToddLittle
#KentMcGuire
#AAABailBonds
#SarahJacobs
#ChadHughes
#MakenzieZarate
#VenitaPhillips
#NormaChambers
#EllisCountyGrandJury

74-YEAR-OLD DISABLED MAN WITH USE OF ONLY ONE FINGER WILL HAVE ALL NINE U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HEAR HIS PRO SE PETITION.

I 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.

U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS GAVE BILL WINDSOR’S PETITION A BIG THUMBS UP.

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:
- - Edward C. Lawson, an African-American civil rights activist, was the pro se defendant in Kolender v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could not arrest a citizen merely for refusing to present identification.
  - Sam Sloan is the last non-lawyer to argue a case before the Supreme Court. in SEC v. Sloan in 1978. The Court ruled in his favor, 9–0. The Court prohibited non-lawyers in 2013.

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!

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10231840526702658&set=a.3465500322805

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!!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10231840526702658&set=a.3465500322805

*** *** ***

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

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.

BUT, PLEASE BE WARNED:

ONCE YOU MAKE IT PUBLIC THAT YOU INTEND TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN YOUR CASE,

YOU WILL BECOME A TARGET.

THE CORRUPTION WILL BECOME WORSE.

YOUR EFFORTS WILL FOLLOW YOU TO ANY AND ALL FUTURE CASES.

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.

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.

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

JustWilliam123@gmail.com

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor