Racketeering and Corrupt Organization Lawsuit filed against 7 Federal Judges and 9 Judicial Employees

On May 20, 2011, William M. Windsor filed a Racketeering and Corrupt Organization lawsuit (RICO) against seven Federal Judges and nine Judicial Employees.

Federal judges and court employees have been accused of committing a host of crimes while working together to protect two judges from indictment and impeachment.

Fulton County Georgia Superior Court Case No. 2011CV200971 has been assigned to Chief Judge Cynthia Wright.

After finding that the entire federal court system is corrupt from the district courts to the appellate courts to the United States Supreme Court, I decided my best remaining hope may be with Georgia courts.  All of this corruption has taken place in Fulton County Georgia — just blocks from the Fulton County Courthouse.

So, I prepared a lawsuit based on violations of Georgia law, and I sued 16 federal employees in county court.  Their employer is irrelevant for the purposes of where the lawsuit may be filed; they are citizens who have committed these crimes in Fulton County, Georgia.  So they have been sued in Fulton County.  This presents an interesting issue for Judge Wright, but I believe the law is very clear: No one can violate Georgia law in any county in the state without state courts being an appropriate place to bring charges.

This lawsuit has been filed against these employees of the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: James N. Hatten, Anniva Sanders, J. White, B. Gutting, Margaret Callier, B. Grutby, and Douglas J. Mincher; this employee of the office of the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; John Ley; these judges with the United States District Court: Judge William S. Duffey, Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge Julie E. Carnes; and these judges with the Eleventh Circuit: Judge Joel F. Dubina, Judge Ed Carnes, Judge Rosemary Barkett, Judge Frank M. Hull; and this employee of Judge Duffey: Jessica Birnbaum.  I believe many others will be named, but I do not yet know their names.

My lawsuit begins with this Preliminary Statement:

1. This Court has an obligation to citizens such as Windsor to “insure justice to all.” So says the Preamble to the Georgia Constitution, and this is emphasized in the Bill of Rights to the Georgia Constitution. Windsor has been denied justice through the efforts of what he believes a jury will declare to be in violation of the Georgia RICO statutes.
2. Article I, Section I, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution provides that “Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Article I, Section I, Paragraph IX of the Georgia Constitution provides that “The people have the right to assemble peaceably for their common good and to apply by petition or remonstrance to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances” Article I, Section I, Paragraph XII of the Georgia Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person’s own cause in any of the courts of this state.”
3. Windsor has been denied these rights by people operating corruptly in Fulton County, Georgia. Abuses have been committed by the Defendants. All happen to be employees or units of the U.S. Government, but their jobs and functions are secondary to the fact that they are breaking the law right here in Fulton County.
4. An online legal dictionary defines corrupt as “having an unlawful or evil motive; especially characterized by improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another.” This description properly defines the Defendants.
5. The actions of Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge William S. Duffey, Judge Julie E. Carnes, Judge Joel F. Dubina, Judge Ed Carnes, Judge Rosemary Barkett, Judge Frank M. Hull, and the employees of the courts and offices of the Clerk of the Court of both the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit bring shame on the legal system. These Defendants have conspired to violate the law and the rights of Windsor and others.
6. This civil action is about the most fundamental legal issues that exist: justice; honesty; fair play; equal protection; due process; Constitutional protections; the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge; the right to honest, law-abiding, impartial clerks of the courts; the requirement that witnesses, attorneys, judges, and government employees tell the truth; the requirement that witnesses, attorneys, judges, and government employees do not violate the laws of the state and the United States, abuse litigants, and commit a variety of offenses.
7. District Court judges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“N.D.Ga.”) ignore the facts; invent their own facts; ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”); ignore the law; ignore applicable case law; cite erroneous case law; commit perjury by making statements that they know to be false in their orders; violate parties’ rights in any way they can; commit obstruction of justice; deny access to the courts; and trample the Constitutional rights of litigants without a thought. They manipulate the judicial system to deprive parties such as Windsor of their legal and Constitutional rights. They commit criminal acts without a thought.
8. Appellate Court judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”) ignore the facts; ignore the points of error of appellants; ignore the law; ignore applicable case law; cite erroneous case law; issue short, inadequate decisions; commit obstruction of justice; deny access to the courts; do whatever it takes to support their friends at the District Courts; and trample the Constitutional rights of litigants.
9. The judicial system supports this dishonesty and illegality. The “system” denies any form of valid recourse for an aggrieved citizen. The Judicial Council ignores valid complaints and claims there is no proof when there is plenty. Aggrieved citizens have no recourse. Since the Supreme Court isn’t really in the business of correcting errors by the lower courts, the N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit combine to have tyrannical power over citizens of Georgia.
10. The Chief Judges of N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit have ignored the wrongdoing of their fellow judges. Windsor wrote to them to complain. Windsor was ignored. These judges support the wrongdoing, and they actively participate in the wrongdoing.
11. Windsor’s only recourse is with the state of Georgia. The federal courts in Atlanta are controlled by people who are no better than gangsters, and their mission is to protect one another and deny justice to citizens like Windsor.
12. This Court and a jury of Fulton County citizens must protect Windsor. It is an obligation mandated by the Georgia Constitution, the laws of Georgia, and federal statutes as well.

I have carefully documented the corruption and criminal acts over the last two years.  A detailed chronology has been provided in the Factual Background of the Verified Complaint with 60 exhibits as proof.

These Defendants have manufactured a lawsuit that doesn’t really exist!  They have then tampered with evidence, destroyed or concealed evidence, docket entries have never been made while others have been changed, notices of appeal have vanished in thin air.  Fortunately, I used couriers to send filings to the clerks of the court, so I have dates, times, the signatures of those who received the documents, and more.  I have testimony of the couriers that the clerks refused to file stamp anything and instead were seen stamping yellow post-its that have later been removed and changed.  I have print-outs of the court dockets that prove docket entries have been backdated and other wrongdoing.  I have proof that documents were held unfiled for as long as 68 days, and I have proof that the employees of the clerks’ offices were in cahoots with the judges and their staff.

This is a civil RICO complaint, but to establish RICO, you have to prove certain criminal violations were committed.  I have plenty of proof. 

Here is the RICO section of the lawsuit:

1. The conduct of Defendants violates the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq (“Georgia RICO”), as more fully set forth below.
2. Defendants have engaged in an ongoing pattern of racketeering activity as defined by O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3.
3. Defendants knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud Windsor. They did so willingly with an intent to defraud. Defendants used the U.S. mails and wire for the purpose of executing the scheme.
4. The activity engaged in by Defendants consists of two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity, the most recent of which occurred within four years after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.
5. The activity engaged in by Defendants had the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or is otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.
6. “Racketeering activity” means to commit, to attempt to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit any crime which is chargeable by indictment under these and other laws of this state: (xvi) Code Section O.C.G.A. 16-10-94, relating to Tampering with Evidence; (xxix) Any conduct defined as “racketeering activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1)(A), (B), (C), and (D). “Racketeering activity” shall also mean any act or threat involving obstruction of justice.
7. The racketeering activity of Defendants includes a pattern of Obstruction of Justice; Tampering with Evidence pursuant to O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury –“ Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A.16-10-93; Theft by Deception – O.C.G.A.16-8-3.
8. Defendants have committed numerous violations of predicate acts as part of the pattern of racketeering activity. Defendants have denied Windsor’s Constitutional rights so as to obstruct justice. Defendant judges have ignored the facts, ignored the law, cited erroneous case law, cited case law that does not support the subject of the citation. Orders have been issued that contained false statements and perjury. Judges have sanctioned and suborned perjury by MOTM, Steamboat, and Anderson. This has been done to obstruct justice. Defendants have denied Windsor’s access to the courts to obstruct justice. Judge Dubina and Judge Julie Carnes ignored the wrongdoing of Judge Evans and Judge Duffey to sanction obstruction of justice. The BOGUS ACTION was manufactured to obstruct justice and damage Windsor. Documents and evidence presented to Mr. Hatten’s office and Mr. Ley’s office have intentionally disappeared — tampering with evidence. Upon information and belief, documents and evidence have been tampered with. Upon information and belief, docket entries have been entered and changed to obstruct justice. A judgment and writ of execution were entered to obstruct justice and damage Windsor. Windsor has been repeatedly denied subpoenas to obstruct justice. Windsor has been denied the ability to obtain testimony from others so as to obstruct justice. Mr. Hatten and Mr. Ley have ignored communications from Windsor so as to obstruct justice. Windsor has been denied copies of his court records so as to obstruct justice. A variety of actions have been taken by defendants to obstruct justice and shield Judge Evans and Judge Duffey from potential indictment and impeachment. Judges have committed perjury. Documents have been concealed to obstruct justice. Laws and rules have been violated to obstruct justice. Orders have been issued to obstruct justice. Valid motions have been denied to obstruct justice. The right to file motions has been denied to obstruct justice. Windsor has been denied the ability to serve as an agent for his wife pursuant to a power of attorney to obstruct justice. Windsor has been libeled to obstruct justice. Judges have refused to recuse themselves to obstruct justice. Judge Duffey falsely claimed documents were not provided to him so he could obstruct justice and damage Windsor. Judges have claimed Windsor’s appeals have been frivolous to obstruct justice. Judges have not properly handled various filings to obstruct justice. Judges ignore emergency motions to obstruct justice. The appeals of Windsor and his wife are not processed promptly or at all to obstruct justice. Judge Duffey issued an order to compel to obstruct justice and damage Windsor. Defendants have failed to file civil actions presented by Windsor for filing in order to obstruct justice. Mr. Hatten’s staff has given false information to Windsor to obstruct justice. Judges have issued various orders to obstruct justice. Judge Duffey and Judge Evans have refused to honor case law that established binding precedents on what happens when an appeal is filed; this has been done to obstruct justice. Mr. Hatten and/or his staff have taken money from Windsor and his wife for services and have failed to provide the services. Windsor’s wife’s filings have been held for as long as 68 days to obstruct justice. Judge Duffey is accusing Windsor of violating court orders, committing forgery, and committing the unauthorized practice of law for the purpose of damaging Windsor and to obstruct justice. It is possible that one or more of the Defendants may be attempting to have Windsor killed to obstruct justice. Someone has directed Mr. Hatten and his staff and Mr. Ley and his staff to commit various acts that violate Windsor’s rights and obstruct justice.
9. The “pattern of racketeering activity” consisted of many incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, and methods of commission and are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.
10. The acts of racketeering activity committed by Defendants have the same or similar methods of commission in that they involve the various aspects of committing fraud in legal matters, including obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements in orders, improper claims of law and case law, and more.
11. The acts of racketeering activity committed by Defendants have the same or similar objective: commit fraud upon the courts and upon Windsor and his wife.
12. The acts of racketeering activity committed by Defendants have the same or similar victims, including William M. Windsor, his wife, Alcatraz Media, LLC, and Alcatraz Media, Inc. Upon information and belief, the acts of racketeering activity have affected others who have been parties to civil actions in the N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit, including, upon information and belief, James Steadman, Janet McDonald, and Jeff Goolsby.
13. The acts of racketeering activity committed by Defendants are otherwise related by distinguishing characteristics including, but not limited to, the involvement of obstruction of justice.
14. The racketeering acts are related. The racketeering acts have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, and/or methods of commission and are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.
15. Defendants’ acts of racketeering activity involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity.
16. This activity has continued for years, is ongoing at the present time, and will continue into the future with a threat of repetition unless halted by judicial intervention.
17. Defendants’ actions appear to be part of a regular way of conducting business.
18. Defendants were aware of the general existence and nature of the enterprise, that it extended beyond each person’s individual role, and with that awareness participated in, aided, or furthered the enterprise’s activities or had an ownership interest in the enterprise.
19. Each Defendant has participated in the operation and/or management of the affairs of an enterprise.
20. The actions of the judges in engaging in the conspiracy are not part of a function normally performed by a judge, and thus are non-judicial. Judges do not have immunity for non-judicial acts.
21. The association of Defendants constitutes an enterprise. The enterprise is composed of groups of individuals and entities associated in fact although not a legal entity.
22. The enterprise was established and maintained for the purpose of committing illegal acts.
23. Defendants’ violations of the Georgia RICO Act proximately have caused Windsor to suffer injury to his property.
24. Windsor has been injured by reason of Defendants’ violation of O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(a) and is entitled to recover three times the actual damages sustained and his costs of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees, filing fees, court reporter costs, printing, mailing, shipping, legal research, and miscellaneous expenses.
25. In addition, Defendants’ actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression and an entire want of care that raises the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences and specific intent to cause harm, entitling Windsor to receive punitive damages sufficient to deter, penalize, or punish Defendants in light of the circumstances of the case.
26. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b), punitive damages may be awarded in such tort actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants’ actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and that entire want of care which raises the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.
27. Windsor is also an aggrieved person within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(b). As a result, Windsor is entitled to appropriate preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
28. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(a), Windsor asks this Court to issue appropriate orders and judgment requiring Defendants to cease their illegal conduct and impose reasonable restrictions upon Defendants’ future activities sufficient to prohibit future violations of the law.
29. Defendants’ violations of the Georgia RICO Act were intended to and did in fact subvert the legal and judicial process in MIST-1, the Bogus Action, and MIST-2.
30. The tortious conduct of Defendants demonstrated an indifference to and a reckless disregard for Windsor. The conduct involved repeated actions. The harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, and deceit.
31. Defendants are guilty of violation of the Georgia RICO Act.

 

While my experience is that federal judges will lie through their teeth about anything, I believe the key to this lawsuit will be the employees.  I suspect they were ordered to commit the crimes.  If the employees are represented by their own attorneys rather than by the government’s attorneys, we should find employees telling the truth to avoid multimillion dollar judgments against them personally.

I hope this will establish a new way that those of us who have been victims of the corruption can seek redress.  In Georgia, this lawsuit awards treble damages, and the jury may award punitive damages.

Please Note: I did not plead any federal causes of action.  I excluded those as federal claims would have given the Defendants an avenue to try to move the case to federal court where they operate corruptly.

Here is a Microsoft Word copy of the Verified Complaint.  Feel free to use it if you plan to file such an action and need a starting place.

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1 – Exhibit 2 – Exhibit 3 – Exhibit 4 – Exhibit 5 – Exhibit 6 – Exhibit 7 – Exhibit 8 – Exhibit 9 – Exhibit 10 — Exhibit 11 – Exhibit 12 – Exhibit 13 – Exhibit 14 – Exhibit 15 – Exhibit 16 – Exhibit 17 – Exhibit 18 – Exhibit 19 – Exhibit 20 — Exhibit 21 – Exhibit 22 – Exhibit 23 – Exhibit 24 – Exhibit 25 – Exhibit 26 – Exhibit 27 – Exhibit 28 – Exhibit 29 – Exhibit 30 — Exhibit 31 – Exhibit 32 – Exhibit 33 – Exhibit 34 – Exhibit 35 – Exhibit 36 – Exhibit 37 – Exhibit 38 – Exhibit 39 – Exhibit 40 — Exhibit 41 – Exhibit 42 – Exhibit 43 – Exhibit 44 – Exhibit 45 – Exhibit 46 – Exhibit 47 – Exhibit 48 – Exhibit 49 – Exhibit 50 — Exhibit 51 – Exhibit 52 – Exhibit 53 – Exhibit 54 – Exhibit 55 – Exhibit 56 – Exhibit 57 – Exhibit 58 – Exhibit 59 – Exhibit 60.

This photo shows proof of the use of Post-Its to make the filing dates removable at will by the staff of the Clerk of the Court.  This photo also has proof of documents held by the Clerk and returned after an extended period of time.  The Clerk screwed up and stamped the receipt date on  the cover letter, so we can prove when the documents were received.  Then we saved their return envelopes, so we can prove when they were returned.  To top it all off, we have printouts of the Court Docket to show that NONE of this was filed or recorded.

May 23, 2011:

Joseph Zernik has analyzed the docket and files in this case, and he has determined that the entire docket provides proof of racketeering.  Mr. Zernik says: “The case was intended to unlawfully quash subpoena of William Windsor on U.S. Judge Orinda D. Evans in a related case. It is part of a widespread practice in both the state and U.S. courts today, through collusion of U.S. judges and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.  Combined with other related cases, originating from the same underlying matter, it also documents that the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court patronize the practice.”

“The case should be viewed in the context of several other actions related to the same underlying matter in the various U.S. courts.  Combined, the cases provide a unique documentation of racketeering in the U.S. courts through the conduct of Simulated Litigations, where the U.S. courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court in fact patronize the practice.  The case at hand is of particular interest, since it provides direct evidence of collusion by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. courts in such conduct.”

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   This website does not provide legal advice.  This website is to expose corruption in our government and the federal judiciary.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

{jcomments on}