 |
82-year-old federal Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat has announced that the right to file an appeal no longer exists in federal courts.
At least it doesn’t exist if your name is Windsor.
In a shocking order, Judge Tjoflat and his running buddies, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor, have denied my wife’s right to appeal….
Before now, everyone has had a right of appeal. My wife is not a party to any lawsuit, but her personal documents were subpoenaed in Civil Action 1:09-CV-01543-WSD, and non-parties have the absolute right to appeal in discovery situations such as this.
But Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor have conspired with Judge William S. Duffey to deny my wife’s right to appeal. They did it as part of the criminal racketeering plan to use a lawsuit that doesn’t exist to punish William M. Windsor. If my wifer’s appeal is allowed, all types of illegal activity by Judge William S. Duffey will be void. The criminal racketeers couldn’t let that happen.
Civil Action 1:09-CV-01543-WSD is Maid of the Mist v. William M. Windsor, et al. It isn’t a valid legal action. It was never filed by Maid of the Mist. There is no complaint. There was never a summons. Nothing was ever served on William M. Windsor. It simply appeared out of nowhere.
On September 24, 2010, Judge William S. Duffey entered an Oral Order (“OO”Β) as to Defendant William M. Windsor (“Windsor”Β) and no one else. It required William M. Windsor to file requests to file anything — denying the absolute Constitutional right to file motions and documents in a legal action.
On October 18, 2010, my wife timely filed a Motion for Protective Order (“MPO”Β) due to service of a subpoena for documents. Maid of the Mist subpoenaed my non-party wife’s personal financial and medical records for the last 20 years or so. This was not relevant to the Civil Action and was totally improper for a variety of reasons.
On November 3, 2010, Judge William S. Duffey issued an Order denying my wife’s MFPO claiming my wife was bound by the OO. my wifeW had no knowledge of the OO, and the order placed no restrictions on her, as the docket entry shows.
On November 5, 2010, my wife presented a Notice of Appeal to the District Court Clerk (“CLERK”Β) with the required fee of $455. The CLERK refused to file my wife’s November 5, 2010 Notice of Appeal. A refund check for $455 was mailed to my wife. Exhibit 32 to Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration is a copy of the check and mailing envelope.
On April 11, 2011, my wife submitted a Notice of Appeal to the CLERK for filing. (PWM Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy, and PWM Exhibit 25 is a file-stamped copy of the cover letter proving receipt by the CLERK.) This Notice of Appeal was returned to my wife by the CLERK. This Notice of Appeal was never docketed, and only the cover letter was file stamped.
On April 21, 2011, Judge William S. Duffey entered an order [Docket #151] questioning the signature on the April 11, 2011 Notice of Appeal. My wife was ordered to add her signature over the top of the signature stamp that had been used. This April 21, 2011 Order (P.4 ΒΆ2) acknowledges the receipt of the April 11, 2011 Notice of Appeal, but it is not shown anywhere on the Docket (PWM Exhibit 1).
On April 28, 2011, my wife filed the Notice of Appeal again and paid the appeal fee with $455. (PWM Exhibit 33 is a copy of the delivery record to prove receipt by the CLERK.) The Notice is not on the Docket (PWM Exhibit 1).
On May 4, 2011, Judge Duffey ordered my wife to appear for a hearing on May 13, 2011. [Docket #158.] In this order, Judge William S. Duffey acknowledged that on April 28, 2011, the CLERK received the April 11, 2011 Notice of Appeal with the original signatures. Judge William S. Duffey questioned the signatures, so my wife submitted an Affidavit dated May 10, 2011 attesting to the validity of the stamp and signature.
On May 6, 2011, my wife and I presented a Joint Request for Specific Approval to file Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery to the CLERK. This Request was never docketed (PWM Exhibit 1). William M. Windsor added it as an exhibit to a Notice of Appeal on May 10, 2011 to ensure that it is in the record [1:06-CV-0714-ODE Docket #168]. BM y wife’s signature matches everything filed in 1:09-CV-01543-WSD.
In May 2011, my wife was forced to produce her financial and medical records to Maid of the Mist for photocopying. Maid of the Mist’s Attorney, Carl H. Anderson. Jr., has repeatedly refused to return the Windsor’s original and only copy of their financial and medical records. He has stolen them.
On July 11, 2011, my wife sent an affidavit to Judge William S. Duffey. It was filed on July 12, 2011. [Docket #221.]
On July 25, 2011, my wifeW filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“PWM”)
On September 8, 2011, the Panel of Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor entered an Order Denying my wife’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
On November 17, 2011, the Panel entered an Order Denying my wife’s Motion for Reconsideration and Emergency Motion for Stay.
|
 |
 |
| Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat | Judge Ed Carnes | Judge William H. Pryor |
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
The Panel decision conflicts with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and of the Eleventh Circuit, and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions, and there are matters of exceptional importance that require an en banc determination.
POINT #1: A VALID MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WAS FILED THAT JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DISALLOW.
THE PANEL OVERLOOKED THIS VITALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
1. This Panel provided NO explanation of any type in its ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 on this vitally important issue. The panel ignored the facts, and this conflicts with the United States Supreme Court decision in Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 558 U.S. ___ (2009), (08-10495). “…the Seventh Circuit erred in disposing of Corcoran’s other claims without explanation of any sort.”Β The Panel denied BGW a complete record of the case, and BGW was afforded no procedural safeguards.
2. The Relief Sought in PWM in ΒΆΒΆ 4, 5, 6, 75, 76, and prayer ΒΆΒΆ (2) and (4) was not addressed by this Panel. The Appellant clearly filed a valid Motion for Protective Order (Docket #96). Judge William S. Duffey denied consideration of the motion by claiming it was blocked by a nonexistent order. Judge William S. Duffey had no right to deny its filing because his excuse for denying it was absolutely bogus as the docket undeniably shows. If the PWM is denied, the decision will be that judges have the authority to secretly issue filing restrictions without notice or the opportunity to be heard…and they can do it retroactively. This conflicts with the Eleventh Circuit precedents in Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986); Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).)
3. Oral orders are not valid. Orders must be signed and issued under seal, and the so-called “Oral Order”Β violates 28 U.S.C. Β§ 1691. This is a matter of exceptional importance that requires en banc consideration.
The word “process”Β at 28 U.S.C. 1691 means a court order. See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884); Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891); U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897); Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904); U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921); In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924); Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968); and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).
POINT #2: JUDGE WILLIAM S. DUFFEY HAS IMPROPERLY EXPOSED
THE APPELANT’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND MEDICAL INFORMATION.
THE PANEL OVERLOOKED THIS.
4. The Relief Sought in PWM ΒΆΒΆ95, 96, 97, and prayer ΒΆΒΆ (3) was not addressed by the Panel. Judge William S. Duffey has made the Appellant’s financial and medical information available publicly. As there was a valid protective order, the PWM must be granted.
5. The Panel’s ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 ignored the facts and conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 558 U.S. ___ (2009), (08-10495). The Panel’s opinion conflicts with privacy laws due to failure to address this issue.
POINT #3: THE APPELLANT FILED THREE NOTICES OF APPEAL,
AND SHE HAS BEEN DENIED HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE APPEALS FORWARDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
THE PANEL COMMITTED ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW.
6. The Panel recognized (ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, P.2 ΒΆ2) that the District Court has a ministerial duty to forward notices of appeal that are filed in the District Court. The Panel claimed there was no proof that the November 5, 2010 Notice of Appeal was received but proof was provided (PWM Exh.6 and ΒΆ29), and additional proof was provided in Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration, ΒΆ10 and Exhibit 32.) The Panel ignored the facts and rules and cited case law that does not support the Panel’s erroneous position that a District Court can block a notice of appeal.
7. The Appellant filed notices of appeal on November 5, 2010, April 11, 2011, and April 28, 2011. Each of the notices was received by the CLERK, and receipt constitutes filing. The District Court has no legal right to block the docketing and processing of anything that is properly presented to the CLERK. Receipt is proven in these sworn paragraphs to PWM: 29, 47, 49, 53, 54; these exhibits to PWM: 25, 27, 33, 34; and these exhibits to Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration: Exhibit 32, Exhibit 14, Exhibit 15, Exhibit 16, and Exhibit 34. The Panel decision conflicts with the rules, Supreme Court precedents, and precedents of the Fifth Circuit established and binding on the Eleventh Circuit.
FRCP Rule 5(d)(2): “A paper is filed by delivering it: (A) to the clerk”
it is settled law that delivery of a pleading to a proper official is sufficient to constitute filing thereof. United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897 (1916).
Failing to file documents presented and reflect the documents on the docket is a failure to perform the ministerial duties of the Clerk of the Court. [emphasis added.] (Wetmore v. Karrick, 27 S. Ct. 434, 205 U.S. 141 (U.S. 03/11/1907).)
“…where the law requires or authorizes a party to file it, it simply means that he shall place it in the official custody of the Clerk.”Β (Milton v. United States., 105 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 07/06/1939); Phinney v. Bank of Southwest National Association, 335 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 08/05/1964); Ray v. United States, 57 S. Ct. 700, 301 U.S. 158 (U.S. 04/26/1937).)
8. Since the Appellant has proven that she filed THREE (3) notices of appeal but has been denied the protections of the appeals and the rights thereto, the PWM must be granted.
POINT #4: THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A VALID NOTICE
OF APPEAL ON NOVEMBER 5, 2010
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO RIGHT TO DENY.
THE PANEL MADE ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW ON THIS.
9. The Relief sought in PWM ΒΆΒΆ 7 and 8 and prayer ΒΆΒΆ (5) and (6) was denied with an inapplicable rule and no case law to support the Panel’s order. The Panel claims there is an issue with the signature on the appeal (ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, P.2 ΒΆ3), but this is totally incorrect. The PWM was verified, and there was no evidence before the Panel to dispute anything that the Appellant swore to be true.
10. The Appellant’s valid Notices of Appeal were not docketed or processed by the CLERK as required by the rules. (See PWM ΒΆΒΆ 29, 47, 49, and 53.)
11. The Panel claims there is no proof that the November 5, 2010 notice of appeal was received by the District Court because it isn’t shown on the docket, but that is because of obstruction of justice by the CLERK and Judge William S. Duffey. The Appellant has sworn it was presented to the CLERK. (PWM ΒΆ29.) PWM Exhibit 6 is the November 5, 2010 Notice of Appeal. It was received by the CLERK. (See the Affidavit of William M. Windsor (Exhibit 34 to Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration) that confirms that the delivery to the CLERK on November 5, 2010 included a Notice of Filing and Notice of Appeal for Windsor and a Notice of Filing and Notice of Appeal for the Appellant. (Please note the special confirmation by the notary on Exhibit 34 to Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration.) The Docket in the Underlying Action shows Windsor’s filings but not the Appellant’s (Docket #102 and Docket #103.) The refund check to the Appellant from the U.S. Treasury bearing the stamped signature of James N. Hatten, the Clerk of the Court, is Exhibit 32 to Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration. It proves the Notice of Appeal was received. Exhibit B ΒΆ38 explains this in detail.
12. The District Court did not have the authority to dismiss the notice of appeal. The Appellant’s right of appeal is assured, but the District Court violated her rights. This is a matter of exceptional importance that requires en banc consideration.
Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A district court cannot dismiss an appeal.”); Liles v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 414 F.2d 612, 614 (4th Cir. 1969) (“Neither by the statutes of the United States nor the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is the district court given the power to deny review by this court of a case in which an appeal as of right is assured.”). (Patel v. Wooten, No. 07-1030 (10th Cir. 02/12/2008); Dickerson v. McClellan, No. 94-5206 (6th Cir. 12/09/1996).) (See also Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo Ass’n, Inc., 895 F.2d 711, 713 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1983).)
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 401, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225, 228 (1982); Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379, 105 S. Ct. 1327, 1331, 84 L. Ed. 2d 274, 281 (1985), reh’g denied, 471 U.S. 1062, 105 S. Ct. 2127, 85 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1985). The district court retains only the authority to act in aid of the appeal, to correct clerical mistakes or to aid in the execution of a judgment that has not been superseded. See e.g., Matter of Thorp, 655 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1981).
13. The Panel erroneously cited Becker v. Montgomery in support of its ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, but this binding precedent provides that the Appellant must prevail in this PWM.
“In sum, the Federal Rules require a notice of appeal to be signed. That requirement derives from Civil Rule 11(a), and so does the remedy for a signature’s omission on the notice originally filed. On the facts here presented, the Sixth Circuit should have accepted Becker’s corrected notice as perfecting his appeal.” (Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 532 U.S. 757, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 149 L.Ed.2d 983, 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (U.S. 05/29/2001).) (See also Scarborough v. Principi, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 541 U.S. 401, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (U.S. 05/03/2004).) [emphasis added.]
POINT #5: THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A VALID NOTICE OF APPEAL
ON APRIL 11, 2011 THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD NO RIGHT TO DENY.
THE PANEL MADE AN ERROR OF LAW ON THIS POINT.
14. The Panel claims FRCP Rule 11(a) provides that “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.”Β True. However, in this matter, there was no unsigned paper. There is no rule that says a signature stamp may not be used. A signature stamp is accepted by banks as an “original”Β signature, and the Appellant’s signature stamp has been successfully used many times.
15. The record before this Panel shows that the Notice of Appeal with the stamped signature was submitted on April 11, 2011 and file stamped by the CLERK to prove receipt. The Appellant has sworn to this (PWM ΒΆ47 and Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration ΒΆ20).
16. The Eleventh Circuit recognizes the validity of signature stamps. (United States v. Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 07/11/1991).) A search of over 5,000,000 cases on www.versuslaw.com reveals not one single case in which a court has said that authorized use of a signature stamp is invalid. There are many cases, however, that discuss the validity of authorized use of a signature stamp.
“Our sister circuits have held in other contexts that signature stamps in lieu of original signatures on official government documents do not render the documents invalid. See United States v. Victoria-Peguero, 920 F.2d 77, 83 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Juarez, 549 F.2d 1113, 1114-15 (7th Cir. 1977). …we find no reason to doubt that a duly authorized signature stamp carries the same authority as an original signature.”Β (Biegeleisen v. Ross, 158 F.3d 59, 164 F.3d 617 (2d Cir. 09/22/1998).) (See also MacPherson v. Town, 664 F.Supp.2d 203 (E.D.N.Y. 09/30/2009).)
17. Signature stamps are accepted on federal income tax returns. (United States v. Pugh, No. 07-cv-02456 (E.D.N.Y. 06/01/2010).) IRS Notice 2004-54 allows original income tax returns, amended returns, or requests for filing extensions to be signed by rubber stamp.
18. Judges are allowed to use signature stamps.
(Varner v. Kathryn T. Bard, 622 F. Supp. 1518 (M.D.Pa. 12/3/1985); Dowell v. Lensing, 805 F. Supp. 1335 (M.D.La. 08/21/1992); U.S. v. Jackson, 04-141CR(RRB),24,27. (D.Alaska 05/10/2005). (See also Newton v. Buckley, 127 F.3D 1109 (10th Cir. 10/17/1997); United States v. Juarez, 549 F.2d 1113 (7th Cir. 02/18/1977); United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37, 52-53 (2d Cir. 1993); Gurung v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 718 (10th Cir. 06/03/2004).
19. The District Court had no legal right to deny the docketing of this April 11, 2011 Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant. This is a matter of exceptional importance that merits en banc consideration.
POINT #6: THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A VALID NOTICE OF APPEAL ON APRIL 28, 2011 THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO RIGHT TO DENY. THE PANEL MADE AN ERROR OF LAW ON THIS POINT
THE PANEL COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND FACT.
20. The Panel erred by claiming there are “legitimate concerns regarding the authenticity of the signature on the April 28, 2011 notice of appeal”Β (ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, P. 2 ΒΆ3). This is not a fact. There are no legitimate concerns. A review of every signature of the Appellant in the record reveals that they are all the signatures of the Appellant. Additional undeniable proof is in Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration, ΒΆΒΆ6-40 and Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 34 thereto. (See also the Appellant’s sworn statements in PWM ΒΆΒΆ 29, 47, 49, 53, 54 and Exhibit 35.)
21. FRCP Rule 11(a) does not allow a court to strike a paper that is “promptly corrected after being called to the party’s attention.”Β Judge William S. Duffey issued an order requiring the Appellant to sign above her signature stamp, and she did. (See Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration ΒΆΒΆ20-22.) There is no rule and no case law to give a District Court the legal right to block any signed paper.
22. No honest judge can claim that the Appellant’s signature has not been documented again and again and again. Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration is an affidavit in which the Appellant provides copies of everything she can locate with her signature. They all match the signature on the notice of appeal and the signature on the PWM and on this Motion for Reconsideration. (See PWM Exhibit 3, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9, Exhibit 23, Exhibit 24, Exhibit 28, Exhibit 30, Exhibit 32, Exhibit 35, Exhibit 36, Exhibit 38, Exhibit 44, Exhibit 45, and Exhibit 33 to Exhibit B to the Motion for Reconsideration.)
23. The Panel claims the district court would deal with the April 28, 2011 Notice of Appeal “expediently.”Β (ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, P.2 ΒΆ4 and P.3 ΒΆ1.) Judge William S. Duffey has failed to do so, and he refused to act when requested.It has been over 208 days and counting as of November 22, 2011 when this article was written.
CONCLUSION
The Panel ignored the facts and the law. The CLERK must be compelled to file the Appellant’s Notices of Appeal and order a stay as of the first Notice of Appeal on November 5, 2010. This Court must order that all orders issued since November 5, 2010 be vacated . For the reasons expressed and the case law cited in the PWM, mandamus is proper in this matter.
My wife expects to lose this Petition because we both lose virtually everything…because THAT’S HOW THE CRIMINAL RACKETEERS OPERATE.
Here are the citations for the case decisions that say the right of appeal no longer exists: Maid of the Mist v. William M. Windsor, et al, 1:09-CV-01543-WSD (N.D.Ga. 2011) and 11-13305 (11th Circuit 2011).
My wife’s personal financial and medical records have been stolen, as have mine, as a result of this. Both Judge William S. Duffey and the judges of the Eleventh Circuit have conspired to make this happen. I tried to press criminal charges against Attorney Carl H. Anderson, Jr., but Fulton County Magistrate Judge Stephanie B. Davis blocked it.
William M. Windsor
William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. 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 of 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.
{jcomments on}