Complaint for VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

District of Columbia

Complaint PDF  —  EXHIBITS PDF

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,                           )

Plaintiff                                                                     )

)           CIVIL ACTION NO.

Scott S. Harris and                                                 )           ________________________

Rashonda Garner,                                                  )

Defendants.                                                             )

                                                                               

 

Complaint for VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND ADDITIONAL CAUSES OF ACTION

The Parties to This Complaint

 The Plaintiff

William Michael Windsor (“WINDSOR”) is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of Lincoln County, South Dakota.

Name:                       William Michael Windsor

Address:                    5013 S. Louise Avenue #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

County:                     Lincoln

Telephone:                352-###-####

Email:                        windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

 

  1. The Defendants

Scott S. Harris (“HARRIS”) is a citizen of the United States, an employee of the federal government in Washington, DC, and a federal official.  HARRIS is sued as an individual.

Name:                        Scott S. Harris

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        pio@supremecourt.gov

 

Rashonda Garner (“GARNER”) is a citizen of the United States, an employee of the federal government in Washington, DC, and a federal official.  GARNER is sued as an individual.

Name:                       Rashonda Garner

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        PMcCabe@supremecourt.gov

 

  1. I Basis for Jurisdiction

[X]  Federal Officials (a Bivens Claim)

Constitutional rights the Plaintiff claims are being violated by federal officials (HARRIS and GARNER), including Denial of Due Process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) provides: “A civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated….”

III.       Statement of Claim

   Where did the events giving rise to your claims occur?

The events took place at the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC and in Lincoln County South Dakota and Sumter County Florida.

  1. What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claims occur?

May 10, 2023; May 23, 2023; June 1, 2023; July 20, 2023; September 26, 2023; October 1, 2023; October 2, 2023; October 27, 2023; October 31, 2023; November 3, 2023; November 20, 2023; November 21, 2023; November 22, 2023; November 27, 2023; December 18, 2023, December 19, 2023; December 20, 2023, December 21, 2023.

What are the facts underlying your claims?

  1. On May 10, 2023, William M. Windsor (“Windsor”), an individual, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (“PETITION”). [EXHIBIT A – May 10, 2023.] This Filing was made in compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s Rule 29 and in the manner required by the Rules, as shown on the Certificate of Service. [EXHIBIT B, Pages 51-52.]  The appropriate number of copies were mailed to the Clerk, and a copy was sent to the Solicitor General and the attorney involved in the case.
  2. On May 10, 2023, the Docket of the United States Supreme Court shows: “Application (22A1009) to file petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in excess of page limits, submitted to Justice Thomas.” [EXHIBIT A, May 10, 2023.]
  3. On May 23, 2023, Justice Clarence Thomas granted the Application (22A1009) “to file petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in excess of page limits. The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition may not exceed 49 pages.” [EXHIBIT A, May 23, 2023.]  It was filed.
  4. On June 1, 2023, the Waiver of the Right of Respondent United States to respond was filed. [EXHIBIT A, June 1, 2023.]
  5. On July 20, 2023, the PETITION was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.” [EXHIBIT A, July 20, 2023.]
  6. WINDSOR spoke by telephone with Jake in the United States Supreme Court Clerk’s Office. Jake explained that WINDSOR’s PETITION would be considered by the nine Justices in a “Conference.”
  7. The “Filing and Rules” section for the United States Supreme Court Clerk’s Office explains:

“The timing for placing petitions on a conference list and distributing them to the Justices is governed by Rule 15.5, which provides as follows: “The Clerk will distribute the petition to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief in opposition is filed, upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing. If a brief in opposition is timely filed, the Clerk will distribute the petition, brief in opposition, and any reply brief to the Court for its consideration no less than 14 days after the brief in opposition is filed, unless the petitioner expressly waives the 14-day waiting period.” [https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx.]

  1. United States Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris has explained Conference Scheduling in a memorandum. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/Guidance-on-Scheduling-2023.pdf.] [EXHIBIT K.]
  2. The Supreme Court Historical Society explains the Conference process. [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/.] [EXHIBIT C.]
  3. On September 26, 2023, the Docket of the United States Supreme Court indicates a Conference was held by the nine Justices in Case No. 22-7648. [EXHIBIT A, September 26, 2023.]
  4. On October 2, 2023, the United States Supreme Court’s Docket shows “Petition DENIED.” [EXHIBIT A, October 2, 2023.]
  5. On October 27, 2023, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Rehearing just to be safe. [EXHIBIT E.] It was sent by USPS. [EXHIBITS F and G.]   This was 25 days after the Docket claims the Petition was denied, so it would have been timely if an order had been issued.
  6. On October 31, 2023, WINDSOR received a letter from Scott S. Harris dated October 2, 2023. [EXHIBIT D.] The letter is not even signed; it’s a stamp.  It bears no seal, and it is not signed by a Justice.  The letter does not qualify as an Order required after a Conference.  And the time has not started to run on the filing of a motion for rehearing.
  7. On November 3, 2023, a letter was dated to WINDSOR by Rashonda Garner for Scott S. Harris. [EXHIBIT H.] The letter is not an order.  All copies of WINDSOR’s Filing were returned. [EXHIBIT I.]  The original copy is stamped “RECEIVED OCT 30 2023 Office of the Clerk Supreme Court U.S.” [EXHIBIT I.]
  8. On November 20, 2023, the letter dated November 3, 2023 was received by WINDSOR. [EXHIBIT J.] The letter is not an order.
  9. On November 21, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail.
  10. On November 21, 2023, Rashonda Garner left a voicemail saying she didn’t understand WINDSOR’s message. [EXHIBIT L.]
  11. On November 22, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail.
  12. On November 27, 2023, all of the mail dated November 3, 2023 regarding the Motion for Rehearing was sent certified mail return receipt to Rashonda Garner. [EXHIBIT H and EXHIBIT J.]
  13. On November 27, 2023, WINDSOR submitted 11 copies of a “MOTION” to the United States Supreme Court.
  14. On December 18, 2023, WINDSOR received a return of all of his November 27, 2023 mailing in a box. [EXHIBIT S.] This is all about WINDSOR’s Petition regarding violations of his Constitutional rights.  USSC Case #22-7648 —   https://lawlessamerica.com/motion-for-compliance-with-rules-of-u-s-supreme-court-was-filed-by-bill-windsor/?fbclid=IwAR14vsRgJBVkismog3TBwe88_GxfP98RcmMOmyLcHUwyt5hVBh3V8sLlENg.  This is the case chosen as one of the approximately 8,000 cases submitted in 2023 that the nine justices were actually to hear on September 26, 2023. https://lawlessamerica.com/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/?fbclid=IwAR1ExGhpVh0dTM8WRD_Bxr6cA_-NB2Hxg6I5adfB41Z7-FXc_zeQQl-MGQ4
  15. On December 19, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail. [EXHIBIT M.]
  16. On December 19, 2023, WINDSOR again called Rashonda Garner and left a detailed voicemail. [EXHIBIT N.] [EXHIBIT O.]
  17. On December 20, 2023, WINDSOR called Rashonda Garner yet again and left a detailed voicemail. [EXHIBIT P.]  The call was not returned.
  18. On December 20, 2023, the Docket of the United States Supreme Court in Case #22-7648 shows no entries after October 2, 2023. [EXHIBIT Q.]
  19. As of December 26, 2023, Rashonda Garner still has not returned WINDSOR’s

 

PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

The PLAINTIFF has not filed other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts involved in this action.

Arguments – claims for relief

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #1 — Bivens Claim

  1. WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights are being violated by federal officials, Harris and Garner, including Denial of Due Process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. HARRIS and GARNER violated WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights, and those rights were so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known they were being violated.
  2. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

 

  1. WINDSOR has been denied Constitutional Due Process Rights
  2. Due process requires that the government respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Procedural due process guarantees protection to everyone so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions ensure that no one is deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.  Judges have shown absolutely no respect for Windsor’s legal rights.  They have ignored the law and the facts.  Windsor has been denied the most fundamental right to not have his legal rights stolen by dishonest judges.
  3. This is not abuse of discretion; they 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).)
  4. In Case No. 2018-CA-010270 in THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA (“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).)
  5. Judges are required to be impartial. Judges have demonstrated pervasive bias against Windsor.  They haven’t shown an ounce of impartiality. (Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).)
  6. In “Some Kind of Hearing,” Judge Henry Friendly said that an important right of due process is “a decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.” Florida judges have not made decisions based upon the evidence presented.
  7. Due process is “an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.” Action denying the process that is “due” is unconstitutional.  In 010270, judges have denied the process that is due.  (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).)
  8. Litigants allegedly have the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law precedent. Statutes have been violated and overwhelming case law has been ignored by judges.
  9. Litigants have the right to equal protection of the law regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, handicaps, or sex. Windsor is 75, handicapped, and he has not received equal protection as a pro se party.
  10. Litigants have the right to a remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs that they may receive in their person, property, or character. Windsor has been denied recourse.
  11. Litigants have the right to justice, without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without undue delay; in conformance with the laws. Florida judges have denied justice and have not conformed with the laws.
  12. The principle of due process of law is one of the most important protections against arbitrary rule.
  13. An inherent right is the honesty of the judge. Judges in Florida have committed perjury and obstruction of justice; they have violated many canons of the Code of Judicial Procedure as well as rules in the Florida Code of Professional Conduct.  Inherent in due process is the expectation that the judge will not violate criminal statutes, but they have.
  14. Judges in Florida have violated Windsor’s rights by using their power to inflict their bias.
  15. For due process, Windsor has the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law. Due process allegedly ensures that the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights and guarantee fundamental fairness and justice.  Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.
  16. Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. Action denying the process that is “due” is unconstitutional.  Inherent in the expectation of due process is that the judge will abide by the rules.   Judges in Florida have violated rules for the purpose of damaging Windsor.
  17. An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. Judges in Florida have not been honest.  They have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  18. 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).)

  1. 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).)

48.              At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.”  For example, in 1934, the United States 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.”

49.              Where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she 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.

50.              Judges and Federal officers have a Constitutional duty to Windsor.  The DEFENDANTS breached their Constitutional duties through action and inaction.

  1. They 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)

  1. The due process clauses of the Constitutions of Florida, South Dakota, and the United States 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).)

  1. Judges in Florida have effectively denied Windsor’s rights of 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).

  1. The orders issued by judges in Florida suggest “the appearance of” animosity towards Windsor.
  2. 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.]

 

  1. AN ORDER was not ISSUED ON THE CONFERENCE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2023.
  2. The Rules of the United States Supreme Court require valid evidence of the October 2, 2023 alleged denial by the Court of the Petition of William M. Windsor in Supreme Court Case #22-7648. An Order was not issued.  This is a violation of due process.
  3. The letters dated October 2, 2023 and November 3, 2023 are not orders and have no validity. [EXHIBITS D and H.] The U.S. Supreme Court Rules use the term “Letter” 13 times, and letters such as these are not authorized by the Rules.
  4. No valid evidence of the denials was attached to the letters.
  5. There is no order issued under seal, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691 – “All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.”

The word “process” 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).

  1. There has never been an ORDER on WINDSOR’s case that was purportedly considered by the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices on September 26, 2023. https://lawlessamerica.com/motion-for-compliance-with-rules-of-u-s-supreme-court-was-filed-by-bill-windsor/?fbclid=IwAR3ldAVwjfI4p7AZo4ILmjCRpshIx-4yAdr-nYAC_yvgz5jg_lIwN0Rfp8Q
  2. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “order” as a “mandate; precept; a command or direction authoritatively given….”
  3. gov defines “clerk of court” as “the court officer who oversees administrative functions, especially managing the flow of cases through the court.
  4. com defines “Administrative function” as that used in carrying out an administrative program and is to be broadly construed to include any aspect of agency organization, procedure, or management. In one state, for example, the term “administrative function” is defined as follows:

(1) “Administrative function” means the administration of:

(i) a law of the State;

(ii) a law of a political subdivision of the State; or

(iii) a rule, regulation, or bylaw of a public body.

(2) “Administrative function” does not include:

(i) an advisory function;

(ii) a judicial function;

(iii) a legislative function;

(iv) a quasi-judicial function; or

(v) a quasi-legislative function. [emphasis added.]

 

  1. Non-judicial court officers, such as clerks of court, will have specific tasks delegated to them by the court; they can make decisions on matters that the legal system does not consider to require judicial discretion and judgment. These are often described as “ministerial.”
  2. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “mandate:” “In practice, a judicial command or precept proceeding from a court or judicial officer, directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence, or decree. Seaman v. Clarke, 60 App. Div. 416, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1002; Horton v. State, 63 Neb. 34, 88 N. W. 146.
  3. “In the practice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the mandate is a precept or order issued upon the decision of an appeal or writ of error, directing the action to be taken, or disposition to be made of the case, by the inferior court … in some of the state jurisdictions….”
  4. WINDSOR has not received a judicial command. A letter purportedly written by the Clerk is not an order.
  5. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precept” as “an order or direction, emanating from authority, to an officer or body of officers, commanding him or them to do some act within the scope of their powers.”
  6. A letter from the Clerk is not a Precept.
  7. The letter does not direct any proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence, or decree.
  8. Failing to do what is required by the rules is a violation of due process, and this is a Constitutional violation.
  9. Windsor requires an order by the United States Supreme Court with a seal of the court and an actual signature of a Justice. This Due Process Notice and Service by Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, Scott S. Harris, was to be made on parties in 22-7648 of the valid record of denial of the Petition by the United States Supreme Court, if that actually happened.

 

  1. WINDSOR’S CONFERENCE DECISION WAS NOT PUBLISHED, AND IT MUST BE.
  2. United States Supreme Court’s Conference Decisions in Appeal No. 22-7648 must be published, and WINDSOR’s was not. This is a violation of due process.

“All conference decisions are published.” [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/ — EXHIBIT C, Paragraph 5.]

“When the vote has been taken on a case, the writing of an opinion is assigned—by the Chief if he voted with the majority, otherwise by the senior Justice of the majority.” [https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/ — EXHIBIT C, Paragraph 6.]

 

  1. WINDSOR’S FILINGS WERE NOT DOCKETED AS THEY MUST BE.
  2. WINDSOR’S filing of a Motion for Rehearing [EXHIBIT E] has been unlawfully excluded from the Docket. [EXHIBIT A.] It was timely filed with the Clerk in paper form – an original and 10 copies.  There was no service by the United States Supreme Court.  This is a violation of due process.
  3. “Filing” is defined as:

“To place a paper in the official custody of the clerk of court to enter into the files or records of a case. [https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary#letter_f]

“the act of giving an official form or document to someone in authority in order to begin a legal process.” [Britannica Dictionary definition of FILING.]

“to deposit with the clerk of the court a written complaint or petition which is the opening step in a lawsuit and subsequent documents, including an answer, demurrer, motions, petitions, and orders. [Copyright © 1981 2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.].

 

  1. United States Supreme Court Rule 29 requires:

“1.   Any document required or permitted to be presented to the Court or to a Justice shall be filed with the Clerk in paper form.

“2.   A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk in paper form within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk through the United States Postal Service by first-class mail (including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meter label, showing that the document was mailed on or before the last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before the last day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days….”

  1. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Court seems to be routinely violating the due process requirements of many litigants. EXHIBIT R is an article written in 2012 about almost identical corruption by U.S. Supreme Court Clerk Thomas Suter.
  2. Notice and Service was not provided. Windsor demanded that it be executed immediately.
  3. Windsor asks that this Motion be docketed pursuant to Due Process and that a valid adjudication of the Motion be noticed and served on the parties.
  4. Windsor also requests all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under No. 22-7648, including all audit data. The audit data is the login name and login time of the individuals who entered any data in the records.
  5. WINDSOR believes these unlawful practices have taken place for at least 13 years. WINDSOR requests copies of all letters issued, rather than orders, in every case since 01/01/2008.

 

  1. ALL ORDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH WINDSOR HAVE NOT BEEN SENT BY EMAIL AS REQUIRED.
  2. Documents attached as EXHIBITS hereto show that WINDSOR does not receive mail promptly. The American Association of Non-Lawyers requires that non-lawyers receive all communications by email.  This eliminates one of the many unfair advantages given to lawyers.  This is a violation of due process.
  3. WINDSOR must be served and communicated with at windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com.

 

  1. WINDSOR WAS NOT ISSUED AN ORDER ON HIS MOTION FOR REHEARING, AND HE MUST BE GIVEN THE PROPER TIME TO RESPOND TO ANY OBJECTION.
  2. Orders are required. This is a violation of due process.
  3. United States Supreme Court Rule 44 (2) provides: “Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial….”
  4. There was no “order of denial,” so the time has not started to run on rehearing.

 

  1. THE CLERKS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, HARRIS AND GARNER, HAVE VIOLATED SUPREME COURT RULE 79 BY NOT KEEPING PROPER RECORDS.
  2. Records are required. This is a violation of due process.
  3. Rule 79 requires:

“(a) Civil Docket.

(1) In General. The clerk must keep a record known as the “civil docket” in the form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made.

(2) Items to be Entered. The following items must be marked with the file number and entered chronologically in the docket:

(A) papers filed with the clerk;

(B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns showing execution; and

(C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments.

(3) Contents of Entries; Jury Trial Demanded. Each entry must briefly show the nature of the paper filed or writ issued, the substance of each proof of service or other return, and the substance and date of entry of each order and judgment. When a jury trial has been properly demanded or ordered, the clerk must enter the word ‘jury’ in the docket.”

  1. HARRIS and GARNER have violated WINDSOR’s civil rights by failing to comply with this Rule.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #2 — CONSPIRACY

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The Defendants, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan. The mutual understanding was to break the law at some time in the future and/or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means.  The DEFENDANTS willfully became members of such conspiracy.  During the existence of the conspiracy, various DEFENDANTS knowingly committed at least one overt act in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.  The conspiracy was designed to deprive the PLAINTIFF of legal rights and deceive the courts to obtain an illegal objective.  Each of the DEFENDANTS is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrongs. DEFENDANTS reached agreement to commit these overt acts.  They committed to support their efforts with a series of lies, to conceal documents, to falsify documents, to lie, and to undertake a variety of actions designed to damage the PLAINTIFF.  At least one of the DEFENDANTS knowingly committed at least two of the overt acts. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct). The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #3 — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The DEFENDANTS have shown extreme and outrageous conduct. The PLAINTIFF has been under extreme emotional distress for 15 months.
  3. DEFENDANTS intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the PLAINTIFF through defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of civil and Constitutional rights.
  4. DEFENDANTS inflicted emotional distress on the PLAINTIFF.  DEFENDANTS acted intentionally or recklessly.
  5. Some of the damaging words about the PLAINTIFF and actions against the Plaintiff are not defamatory, and it is these words and actions for which the PLAINTIFF seeks recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  6. Conduct of DEFENDANTS was extreme and outrageous. These outrageously false and/or criminal claims and the wide variety of things that DEFENDANTS have done would prompt an average member of the community to exclaim “outrageous!”
  7. The activities of DEFENDANTS have been so extreme that it has gone well beyond all possible bounds of decency, and it must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. All of the acts of DEFENDANTS taken together amount to the type of extreme conduct that qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  8. The conduct of Defendants caused the distress.
  9. The distress caused was severe emotional distress to the PLAINTIFF. The outrageous harassment, lies, libel, slander, and defamation are bad alone, but the effect on the PLAINTIFF’s mental health has been severe.
  10. There are no alternative causes of action that would provide a remedy for the severe emotional distress caused by DEFENDANTS’ conduct that does not meet whatever standard the Court decides is appropriate for defamation.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #4 — 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) – Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The conduct of DEFENDANTS violates the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (“Federal RICO”).
  3. DEFENDANTS, individually and in conspiracy with one another, are all RICO persons who violated RICO by engaging in (1) “racketeering activity,” (2) conducted through a “pattern,” (3) affecting an “enterprise,” (4) impacting interstate commerce. DEFENDANTS also violated 18 USC §1962(d) by conspiring as alleged herein to violate 18 USC §1962(c). All of DEFENDANTS’ predicate acts have a similar purpose – to damage the PLAINTIFF – all have similar victims, the PLAINTIFF, all have had similar results, and the methods of commission have been virtually identical.
  4. Racketeering Activity included violations of section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), and other sections.
  5. A number of crimes were committed by DEFENDANTS. Interstate crimes of wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and criminal conspiracy were committed between the District of Columbia, South Dakota, and Florida.
  6. DEFENDANTS knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud the PLAINTIFF and did so willingly with an intent to defraud. The activity engaged in consists of two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity, the most recent of which occurred within hours after the commission of a prior act.
  7. The DEFENDANTS committed violations of Federal RICO and RICO Conspiracy – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise). In addition to the substantive offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961, a criminal conspiracy to commit these offenses is a RICO predicate act.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #5 — Violation of Federal RICO Conspiracy Offense — 18 USC § 1962(d)

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. The DEFENDANTS, in some way or manner, came to mutual understandings to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan as described herein. The mutual understanding was to break the law. The DEFENDANTS willfully became members of such conspiracy.
  3. During the existence of the conspiracy, various DEFENDANTS knowingly violated the Federal RICO Act. These violations were knowingly committed in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
  4. The conspiracy was designed to deprive the PLAINTIFF of Constitutional rights and legal rights and to deceive the courts to obtain an illegal objective. Each of the DEFENDANTS is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrongs. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise).  The predicate acts are identified herein, and those paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #6 — Violation of Due Process and Deprivation of Rights — 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. HARRIS, GARNER, and UNIDENTIFIED DOES conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, and/or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice with intent to deny PLAINTIFF due process and to injure him while attempting to enforce his right to self-representation, and this violated the equal protection of the laws.. HARRIS, GARNER, and UNIDENTIFIED DOES have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #5 — Violation of Constitutional Rights

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. DEFENDANTS had a Constitutional duty to the PLAINTIFF.  They breached their Constitutional duties to the PLAINTIFF through action and inaction.  This caused damage to the PLAINTIFF.
  3. The PLAINTIFF brings this action against HARRIS and GARNER, pursuant in part to 28 U.S. C. § 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971). HARRIS and GARNER subjected the PLAINTIFF to deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
  4. HARRIS and GARNER’s actions are non-judicial, and there is no immunity. The PLAINTIFF has been damaged.  The PLAINTIFF prays for monetary damages against HARRIS and GARNER based upon violations of federal Constitutional rights pursuant to Bivens.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #6 — Fraud

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. Defendants intentionally misstated material facts, omitted material facts, and made false representations. Defendants knew they made false statements or omitted material facts, or they had a reckless disregard for the truth.  The PLAINTIFF and the courts relied upon the intentional misstatements and/or omission of material facts.  Defendants committed fraud.  The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct).

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #7 — Common Law Fraud

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. Defendants misrepresented material facts. These Defendants had knowledge of the falsity.  Their intent was that the representations would be acted upon by people ignorant of the falsity, relied on the truth of the representations, and had a right to rely upon it.
  3. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct). The PLAINTIFF was damaged as a result.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #8 — Violation of Pro Se Rights

 

  1. The allegations in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
  2. Pro se parties are a minority class of people. The PLAINTIFF objects to the treatment of pro se parties in state and federal courts.  The PLAINTIFF, Pro Se, has been repeatedly denied rights and abused.  Judges and judicial officers have violated the Constitutional rights of the PLAINTIFF and other pro se parties.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #9 — Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 — Violation of First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
  2. The PLAINTIFF was denied due process and his rights were violated when filings were not filed or considered.
  3. The PLAINTIFF was denied access to a court to seek redress of grievances.
  4. Defendants directly participated in the infraction, after learning of it, failed to remedy the wrong, and created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred or allowed such policy or custom to continue.
  5. As a direct result of the actions, statements and / or policies of the Defendants, the PLAINTIFF suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  6. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
  7. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the PLAINTIFF has suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe and substantial damages. These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and distress.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #10 — Violation of Fourth Amendment Failure to Train and Supervise — 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
  2. The Defendants’ immediate supervisors, had a duty to train and supervise them to ensure they were not engaging in conduct that violated the civil rights of citizens like the PLAINTIFF.
  3. Instead of carrying out this duty, Defendants chose to encourage the misconduct of needless escalation and aggression witnessed by the Defendants against the PLAINTIFF in this case.
  4. DefendantS’ use of excessive force and their illegal seizure and assault upon the PLAINTIFF was the direct result of their supervisor’s deliberate indifference to the civil rights of citizens and of disabled citizens in particular, and his repeated failure and refusal to intervene to supervise, train, or otherwise put a stop to such misconduct.
  5. All of the acts described herein were done by Defendants intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and recklessly in disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s federally protected rights, and they were done pursuant to the pre-existing and ongoing deliberately indifferent customs, policies and practices of the Clerk of Court, under color of law.
  6. Upon information and belief, the Clerk of Court’s customs and practices of unlawful conduct (and failures to train/supervise to prevent the same) proximately causing the harms described herein to the PLAINTIFF.
  7. Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at the Clerk of Court’s Office of the United States Supreme Court to regularly violate the civil rights of citizens like the PLAINTIFF and intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and recklessly operate in disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s federally protected rights;
  8. Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at the Clerk of Court’s Office to try and cover-up and justify such wrongdoing.
  9. Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice by the Clerk of Court to refuse to discipline its employees for misconduct and to refuse to ever find its employees have engaged in wrongdoing, in the face of obvious and repeated constitutional violations, which resulted in a foreseeable culture of dishonesty and silence in the face of ongoing and repeated civil rights violations.
  10. The unlawful conduct of Defendants as set forth in detail herein, amounts to a custom and well-settled, widespread overall practice of fraud and corruption deliberately insulated from law enforcement accountability, throughout the Defendants, even if not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, and is so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.
  11. Through the Defendants’ continuous ratification of unconstitutional actions and inactions, Defendants have condoned and become the driving force of the Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct.
  12. Defendants failed to properly train and supervise its employees to avoid their foreseeable use of unconstitutional conduct.
  13. Defendants’ policies, customs, and practices in failing to properly train and supervise its employees were the moving force and proximate cause of the violations to the PLAINTIFF’s constitutional rights.
  14. The custom, policy, and practice of Defendants of encouraging, condoning, tolerating, and ratifying the unconstitutional conduct, as described herein, were the moving force behind and the proximate cause of, the violations to the PLAINTIFF’s Constitutional rights.
  15. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been deliberately obfuscatory and in other litigation involving claims against its officers, has made concerted efforts to withhold, destroy, conceal and delay the release of documents and correspondence that relate to the unconstitutional policies, customs, and practices set forth above, and which also evidence Defendants’ unconstitutional practices, customs, failures to train, and supervise Defendant officers as set forth above.
  16. The acts or omissions of Defendants caused the PLAINTIFF to suffer physical and mental pain, among other injuries, damages, and losses.
  17. The actions and omissions of Defendants as described herein deprived the PLAINTIFF of the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America and caused his other damages.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #11 — Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 — Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. The PLAINTIFF was denied due process and his rights were violated when Defendants gave false information to WINDSOR and judges.
  3. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
  4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the PLAINTIFF has suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe and substantial damages. These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and distress.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #12 — Monell Claim

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. At all relevant times herein, the Clerk of Court’s Office developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned de facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the PLAINTIFF’s Constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights.
  3. Defendants ‘ unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  4. The Constitutional abuses and violations of the Clerk of Court’s Office, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendants, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further Constitutional violations on the part of its Clerk of Court’s Office, and their employees; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its employees, including Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of misconduct, and, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated.
  5. Upon information and belief, Defendants acting through its Clerk of Court’s Office, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting law enforcement and judicial misconduct.
  6. Defendants’ unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  7. The PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to his Constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such Constitutional abuses.
  8. Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
  9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the PLAINTIFF has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages. These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and distress.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #13 — CIVIL CONSPIRACY

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants conspired to damage the PLAINTIFF.
  3. Defendants formed and operated the conspiracy. The object to be accomplished was to defame, libel, slander, harass, cyberstalk, invade his privacy, falsely charge the PLAINTIFF with felonies, cause emotional distress, invade his privacy, and damage him. Evidence shows that Defendants had a meeting of the minds and actively worked together toward this objective.
  4. Multiple unlawful, overt acts were committed. There was specific intent to agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.  The conspiracy occurred in the District of Columbia.  The act in, and effect on, the District of Columbia was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  5. There are underlying torts that support the conspiracy cause of action.
  6. Damage resulted to the PLAINTIFF from acts done in furtherance of the common design. The PLAINTIFF has been caused pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost enjoyment of life, loss of his marriage, damage to his relationship with his family, severe damage to his reputation, damage to his career, and more.  The PLAINTIFF’s business relationships have been severely damaged.
  7. The PLAINTIFF’s reputation is now sullied by false, defamatory information online. This defamation likely can never be erased because it is breeding in cyberspace.
  8. There was extreme risk by Defendants as there was not a remote possibility of injury or even a high probability of minor harm, but rather the likelihood of serious injury to the PLAINTIFF.
  9. Actual awareness existed because Defendants knew about the peril, but their acts demonstrated they did not care.
  10. Some Defendants aided and abetted the conspiracy and underlying torts.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #14 — EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants acted intentionally to damage the PLAINTIFF.
  3. Defendants committed fraud, malice, and gross negligence. This isn’t the case of someone slipping up and making one false statement.  The actions of Defendants were deliberate.
  4. Conduct of Defendants, as described above, is willful, wanton, wicked, intentional, and malicious resulting from fraud, insult, and malice, and it is associated with aggravating circumstances, including willfulness, wantonness, malice, oppression, outrageous conduct, insult, and fraud, thus warranting the PLAINTIFF’s recovery of punitive damages from each of the Defendants.
  5. The entire want of care by the Defendants shows that the acts complained of were the result of conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of the PLAINTIFF.
  6. The PLAINTIFF should receive an award of punitive/exemplary damages. Exemplary damages serve to provide the claimant with recovery above and beyond compensatory damages in order to punish the wrongdoers for egregious conduct and to deter the wrongdoers and others from similar conduct in the future.
  7. Since the PLAINTIFF’s damages can never be erased in this case; there is no amount of money that could compensate the PLAINTIFF for the loss of life as he knew it; there is no amount of money to compensate a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen for the destruction of his reputation.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #15 — INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

  1. If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants and their agents, representatives, and employees will continue to implement similar policies and practices that deny citizens their Constitutional rights without due process, violate their right to equal protection of the laws, and deprive people of the privileges or immunities of citizenship. This course of conduct will cause citizens to suffer irreparable injury, including but not limited to, loss of business opportunities and the deprivation of their livelihoods.  Citizens have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law for such an injury.  Accordingly, injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other authority is appropriate.

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #16 — RICO RELIEF

 

  1. The PLAINTIFF asks that this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have acquired and maintained, both directly and indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s); that judgment be entered for the PLAINTIFF and against all Defendants for the PLAINTIFF’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), according to the best available proof; that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF all damages sustained by the PLAINTIFF in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF his costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees; that all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of the PLAINTIFF, his heirs and assigns; that the PLAINTIFF has such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances of this action; that Defendants have conspired to acquire and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and maintain control of, a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d); that Defendants have conspired to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d); that all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s); that judgment be entered for the PLAINTIFF and against all Defendants for the PLAINTIFF’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF treble damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF all damages sustained by the PLAINTIFF in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the PLAINTIFF his costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees; and that all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of the PLAINTIFF, his heirs and assigns.

 

 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF #17 — Violations of Title II of Americans With Disabilities Act — 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213

 

  1. All preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated here for purposes of this Claim.
  2. Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discrimination on the basis of a disability.
  3. The DEFENDANTS failed to provide modifications or reasonable accommodations to the PLAINTIFF in light of his disabilities, and the Clerk of Court HARRIS failed to adopt policies and procedures, or adequately train his staff to safely interact with people who suffer such disabilities.
  4. Some reasonable accommodations for a litigant functioning alone with Cognitive Decline and use of only one hand while traveling a thousand miles from home is to allow recording, provide all communications in writing, and communicate by email for the fastest possible delivery.
  5. Unlawful discrimination, pursuant to DOJ regulation, includes a failure to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).
  6. As a proximate result of actions of the DEFENDANTS, the PLAINTIFF was injured, suffered physically and emotionally, has been unable to comply with requests of the Clerk of Court, and continues to experience fear, trauma, and anxiety.
  7. As a result of the DEFENDANTS’ violations of Title II of the ADA, the PLAINTIFF is entitled to compensatory damages.

 

  1. INJURIES

 

________________________________________________________________

 

  1. RELIEF

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants:

  1. that this COMPLAINT be granted;
  1. Appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the unlawful and unconstitutional acts and practices of the Defendants;

 

  1. Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, privacy, sense of security and individual dignity, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law;

 

  1. Appropriate equitable relief against all Defendants as allowed by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the enjoining and permanent restraining of these violations, and direction to Defendants to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of the unconstitutional and unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect the PLAINTIFF or others;

 

  1. All economic losses and damages on all claims allowed by law to be established at trial;

 

  1. Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial;

 

  1. that an order be issued confirming if there was a Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648;

 

  1. that an order be issued reflecting the Due Process Notice and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. Harris, on parties in Case No. 22-7648 of the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court;

 

  1. that the Opinion of the Court in Case No. 22-7648 be provided;

 

  1. that the vote of each Justice be indicated in Case No. 22-7648;

 

  1. that the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process;

 

  1. that an order be issued that WINDSOR must be served and communicated with at windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com;

 

  1. that this Motion be granted – motion TO REQUIRE confirmation OF A Conference of the nine justices in Case No. 22-7648 and ISSUANCE OF AN Order SO CONFIRMING; order reflecting the valid record of the decision of the Petition by the Court in Case No. 22 7648, the Due Process Notice, and Service by Clerk of the Court, Scott S. HARRIS, of OPINION in Case No. 22-7648 on EACH partY; RECORD OF VOTES BY EACH JUSTICE in Case No. 22-7648; ORDER THAT the Motion for Rehearing be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that this Motion DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2023 be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648 AT NO charge, including all audit data; AND if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. HARRIS be docketed pursuant to Due Process; that Windsor be provided copies of all court records in the internal case management system of SCOTUS under Case No. 22-7648, at no charge, including all audit data; that Windsor be provided copies of letters and orders issued in every case considered in Conference since 02/01/2008; that if Case No. 22-7648 was not heard in Conference, that this Court file criminal charges against Scott S. Harris;

 

  1. Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief, including, but not limited to: (1) The imposition of policy changes designed to avoid future similar misconduct by Defendants; (2) Mandatory training designed to prevent future similar misconduct by Defendants;

 

  1. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and

 

  1. Any further relief to which PLAINTIFF may show himself justly entitled.

 

Submitted this 26th day of December 2023,

 

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

VERIFICATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C.§1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

FURTHER SAITH AFFIANT NOT.

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this COMPLAINT has been prepared in Times New Roman 12-point font, one of the font and point selections approved by this Court and meets the requirements of this Court.

This 26th day of December 2023,

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

WINDSOR is a private individual.  He is not a nongovernmental corporation so a corporate disclosure statement is not appropriate or required by Rule 7.1.

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William Michael Windsor, do swear that on this date, December 26, 2023, I have served the enclosed COMPLAINT on the DEFENDANTS in the above proceeding or their counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

Name:                       Scott S. Harris

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        pio@supremecourt.gov

 

Name:                       Rashonda Garner

Address:                    Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Telephone:                202-479-3025

Email:                        PMcCabe@supremecourt.gov

 

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

 

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

 

THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

 

This 26th day of December 2023,

 

_______________________________
WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR
,

Self-Represented Litigant, Pro Se

Member of the American Association of Non-Lawyers

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

Crazy Judge Dan L. Schaap – Hunter Tyler Schreck Legal Update – 11-29-2021

 

crazy are you crazy cropped 200h

Is Judge Dan L. Schaap aka “Big Chief” crazy? It has been a very busy week in the case of Hunter Tyler Schreck’s case. Hunter was almost murdered on June 24, 2020 by as many as 15 Amarillo, Texas Police officers and civilians. Hunter had done absolutely nothing. Judge Daniel Leon Schaap has just issued one of the craziest orders I have ever seen.

Judge Dan L. Schaap issued a CRAZY ORDER order asking the Randall County District Attorney if he had an objection to the termination of Hunter Schreck’s corrupt court-appointed attorney. Seriously. This guy has to be nuts. The prosecuting attorney has no say in who a criminal defendant chooses to use. The court-appointed attorney works for and is paid by Randall County.

crazy are you crazy


This is the CRAZY JUDGE — Judge Dan L. Schaap aka Judge Daniel Leon Schaap aka Leon aka Big Chief:

 

Schaap Judge Dan 900w
                Judge Dan L. Schaap — BIG CHIEF


BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: Judge Dan L. Schaap is the lowest of low-life judges. I’ve dealt with or been aware of thousands of corrupt judges, but they’re usually just dishonest a$$hole$. Judge Dan L. Schaap is trying to murder a disabled boy. I hope there is a very special place in Hell for Judge Dan L. Schaap.

Marcie Schreck has filed a Motion in response to the CRAZY ORDER:

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, Hunter Tyler Schreck (“Hunter” or “DEFENDANT”) through Marcie Schreck and William M. Windsor, who have his power of Attorney for all legal matters, and hereby files this Motion to Strike Order Setting Hearing by Submission (“MOTION”).  There is no legal basis for this MOTION.

1.                  On 11/23/2021, Judge Dan L. Schaap signed the ORDER SETTING HEARING BY SUBMISSION (“ORDER”). [EXHIBIT 389.] 

2.                  JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP DOES NOT HAVE JURIDICTION BECAUSE JUDGE ANA ESTEVEZ HAS GIVEN PLENARY JURISDICTION TO JUDGE KENT SIMS.

3.                  The ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT granted plenary power to Judge Kent Sims. [EXHIBIT 317.] 

4.                  A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action, with no limitations.

5.                  JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP HAS NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY PENDING AGAINST HIM, AND THE 11/18/2021 HEARING IS VOID.

6.                  Case law requires that the disqualification hearing must be an evidentiary hearing.  Judge Kent Sims denied evidence.  He refused to swear in Marcie Schreck.

“Judge Brown did not afford Durden an evidentiary hearing on his motion to disqualify/recuse; therefore, we conditionally grant the petition in part and direct
Judge Brown to vacate his ‘Order on Motion to Recuse and Jeopardy Motion for Dismissal.’…” (In re State ex rel. Durden, 587 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App. 2019).)

“On appeal, Sanchez complains that an evidentiary hearing was mandatory under TEX.R.CIV.P. 18a once the recusal motion was referred to the administrative
judge. We agree.” (Sanchez v. State, 926 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. App. 1996).)

“Sanchez complains that an evidentiary hearing was mandatory under TEX.R.CIV.P. 18a once the recusal motion was referred to the administrative judge. We
agree.”  (Sanchez v. State, 927 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. App. 1996).)

“Accordingly, the respondent abused his discretion in disqualifying Zayas without notice and an evidentiary hearing.” (In re Lopez, 286 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. App.
2008).)

“…the only order the trial court had authority to enter after it refused to recuse itself was an order of referral. State ex rel. Millsap, 692 S.W.2d at 481. Because
the trial court neither granted the motion to recuse nor referred the matter to the presiding judge, any other order made thereafter was void.” (Crawford v.
State
, 807 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. App. 1991).)

7.                  THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO OBJECT TO OR OPPOSE THE WITHDRAWAL OF A COURT-APPOINTED DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO WAS TERMINATED MONTHS AGO.

8.                  Brooks Barfield has begged to withdraw. [EXHIBIT 310.] [EXHIBIT 311.]

9.                  The DEFENDANT has filed motions to dismiss Brooks Barfield as he was terminated on October 12, 2021. [EXHIBIT 2.]  [EXHIBIT 16.] [EXHIBIT 188.]

10.              JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP TOLD THE DEFENDANT AND MARCIE SCHRECK THAT HUNTER COULD TERMINATE BROOKS BARFIELD AT ANY TIME.

11.              The Zoom call was tape recorded.  EXHIBIT 134 is a transcript of the call.  EXHIBIT 297 is the Audio Recording.

12.              The DEFENDANT recorded a video for Judge Dan L. Schaap explaining that he does not want Brooks Barfield.  The DEFENDANT refuses to work with Brooks Barfield. [EXHIBIT 156 and EXHIBIT 157.] [EXHIBIT 377.] [EXHIBIT 392.]

13.              THE DEFENDANT HAS FILED A STATE BAR OF TEXAS GRIEVANCE AGAINST BROOKS BARFIELD, AND HE IS SEEKING HIS DISBARMENT.

14.              The Grievance was filed by Fax on 11/24/2021. [EXHIBIT 388.]

15.              Marcie Schreck is also seeking a protective order against Brooks Barfield. [EXHIBIT 308 and EXHIBIT 309.]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the DEFENDANT prays that the Court strike the ORDER SETTING HEARING BY SUBMISSION; sign the order [EXHIBIT 188] removing Brooks Barfield from the case and order him to immediately deliver the case file and all evidence to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK; order all filings received by the Clerk of Court to be docketed; enter an order recognizing that Marcie Schreck and William M. Windsor are authorized by Texas law Chapter 752 to represent HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK as his Attorney-in-Fact [EXHIBIT 400]; schedule a hearing on the Motion to Quash the Purported Indictments and Motion to Dismiss; schedule a hearing on the Motion for Discharge due to failure to provide a Speedy Trial; and for such other and further relief in connection therewith that is proper.

 

Photo Hunter Schreck and Marcie Schreck happier times 2015 CROPPED 640w
                      Hunter Tyler Schreck and Marcie Schreck BEFORE Hunter was almost murdered
and suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury

 

Marcie Schreck believes Judge Dan L. Schaap may be mentally ill.

There have been a lot of significant developments in the case of HUNTER TYLER SHRECK this week. It appears the CRAZY ORDER should lead to the removal of BROOKS BARFIELD, the clueless attorney of Amarillo. We are waiting with baited breath to see if Big Chief Dan L. Schaap recognizes the law that makes Marcie Schreck and Bill Windsor the Attorneys-in-Fact for Hunter Tyler Schreck.

If he does, it’s ramming speed!

If Big Chief Dan L. Schaap doesn’t schedule hearings on the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial after 525 days and the Motion to Quash the Indictments, then it’s time for the Court of Appeals.

We have noticed many depositions. We have sent many demands for criminal investigations against the army of evildoers. We have been speaking with the top attorneys in the country who might like to make $20 million handling Hunter Schreck’s civil case. We have emailed the defendants in the civil case maaaany times. Marcie has been receiving wonderful help from Easter Seals. We have filed two Bar Association Complaints. We are prepared to file a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Big Chief. We have done background checks on every potential defendant using MyLife’s 96-hour introductory trial special for $1. That’s how we managed to get Big Chief’s personal emails. 🙂

 

Marcie has had a lot of success getting chances for desperately-needed medical care for Hunter and Logan. She somehow is managing to get $15,000 in dental work done for Logan for FREE.

Stay tuned for more news from Big Chief. Maybe they are finally ready to give up and dismisss the case.


 

Other Articles about Hunter Tyler Schreck:

Hunter Tyler Schreck – a Disabled Young Man – has been Victimized by Police, District Attorney, and Pentecostal Church Members in Amarillo Texas

Just Like the Man who has Done Nothing Wrong by Hunter Tyler Schreck

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 1

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 2

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 3

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 4

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 5

It’s the Belt — Secrets of the Clever Mom of Hunter Tyler Schreck

 

Beware of Brooks Barfield

 

Bar Grievance Against Brooks Barfield

 

Bar Grievance Against The D.A. Robert Love

 

Crazy Judge Dan L. Schaap ak BIG CHIEF

Copyright LawlessAmerica.com
Bill Windsor went to high school and college in Lubbock, Texas — just a short drive from Amarillo, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country he has loved so much. 


 

windsor bill 2012 09 28 cropped tight edited 200w

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 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

 

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com 

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

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

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#HunterTylerSchreck
#HunterSchreck
#MarcieSchreck
#RandallCounty
#RandallCountyTexas
#Amarillo
#AmarilloTexas
#JudgeDanLSchaap
#JudgeSchaap
#JudgeDanSchaap
#WBrooksBarfield
#brooksbarfield
#traumaticbraininjury
#amarillopolice
#amarillopolicedepartment
#DanielRivera
#AllisonMuncell
#matthewbrush
#SheaLitchie
#danielsmith
#JubileeChurch
#johnstiffmemorialpark
#davidblount
#daveblount
#nathancarrington
#rolondacarrington
#nataleycarrington
#jubileeapostolicchurch
#angelicaesparza
#brayanzubiate
#ChristianMorgan
#VictorPinentel
#AaronGurule
#DanaGurule
#georgehastings
#dennisgreen
#jbeghtel
#vpadilla
#jtinsley
#sgthaley
#samanthabowman
#samanthafontenot
#SamanthaBowmanFontenot
#bushland
#BushlandTexas

 

Hunter Tyler Schreck Legal Update – 11-22-2021

 

crazy are you crazy cropped 200h

Update since Hunter Tyler Schreck filed a Mega-Million federal lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas on 10/29/2021 for violation of his Constitutional rights. It has been a very busy week. Hunter was almost murdered on June 24, 2020 by as many as 15 Amarillo, Texas Police officers and civilians. Hunter had done absolutely nothing.

Hunter Schreck has filed his lawsuit pro se. He has named 58 Defendants and 100 John Doe Defendants (gangsters he will identify in discovery). Here is Civil Action No. 2-21CV-220-Z – Schreck v City of Amarillo, Et al. – Verified Complaint2-21CV-220-Z – Schreck v City of Amarillo, Et al. – Verified Complaint.

crazy are you crazy


On 10/28/2021, BROOKS BARFIELD sent Marcie Schreck notice of a “Show Cause Hearing” in the Randall County 47th Judicial District Court on 11/2/2021 at 1:30 p.m. [EXHIBIT 211.]  She was told by Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds that HUNTER’s bond would be revoked and he would be arrested if he wasn’t there.  Marcie Schreck checked the docket, and there was no hearing shown.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: There was no such hearing scheduled. Just one of the almost never-ending lies of BROOKS BARFIELD, Public Pretender and criminal.

On 10/28/2021 at 11:38 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD advising him to notify his malpractice carrier that a malpractice lawsuit was being filed against him. [EXHIBIT 208.]
On 10/28/2021 at 8:24 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent a CEASE-AND-DESIST notice by email to BROOKS BARFIELD. [EXHIBIT 207.] It said:

Mr. Barfield: Please CEASE AND DESIST.  Hunter, William, Logan, and I don’t ever want to hear from you again.  I thought that was made quite clear from earlier messages and filings. Once again:  Do not show up anywhere that Hunter and I are.  Do not contact us in any manner.  No email.  No mail.  No couriers.  No phone calls.  No visits.  No courthouse contact.  No telegrams.  No trick or treating.  NOTHING. CEASE AND DESIST. You have made threats to me.  I am asking the police to pursue criminal charges against you for what you have already done.  If you contact us again, we will go seek a STALKING, Harassment, and Cyber Terrorism Protective Order.  I am copying several people so they are aware of this. Marcie Schreck – Attorney-in-Fact for Hunter Tyler Schreck

On 10/29/2021, Marcie Schreck (“MOMMA SCHRECK”) filed the Verified Complaint with Alice in the Clerk’s Office of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She filed the Verified Complaint, a Civil Cover Sheet, a Certificate of Interested Persons, and a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Costs. She also delivered 58 Summons Foms for signature by the Clerk once In Forma Pauperis status is approved.

On 10/29/2021 and 10/30/2021, Marcie Schreck emailed a copy of the federal court Verified Complaint to BROOKS BARFIELD and the other defendants with known email addresses.

On 10/29/2021 at 8:27 a.m., Marcie Schreck received an email from Sandy Russell of Randall County that shows the federal court Verified Complaint to BROOKS BARFIELD and the other defendants with known email addresses was received. [EXHIBIT 209.]

On 10/31/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck at 10:11 a.m. with notice of a “Status Hearing” in the Randall County 47th Judicial District Court on 11/2021 at 1:30 pm.  Neither HUNTER nor Marcie Schreck knew anything about this.  He asked Marcie Schreck to confirm receipt.  He said: “Your attendance is required for this hearing.  When you arrive at court, you are required to text or call.  Then when the hearing is concluded, contact us again to report the outcome.  We also need a copy of any and all court documents that you received.  You can send them by email or text or by simply taking a photo of them and email.  I wish you the best outcome.”

On 11/1/2021 at 10:13 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:22 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:22 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent another email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:28 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to Samantha Wilson of the BARFIELD Law Firm with instructions on what BROOKS BARFIELD must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:10 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to Samantha Wilson of the BARFIELD Law Firm with instructions on what BROOKS BARFIELD must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:15 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:19 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 4:28 a.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with instructions on what he must file and do since he had not exited from the case. Marcie Schreck included an order for Judge Dan L. Schaap to sign removing BROOKS BARFIELD.  [EXHIBIT 136.]  BROOKS BARFIELD has never filed these things or done anything.

On 11/2/2021 at 8:56 a.m., BROOKS BARFIELD filed a MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL.” [EXHIBIT 163.]  It says: “Good cause exists for withdrawal as counsel in that Movant is unable to effectively communicate with Hunter Schreck so as to be able to adequately represent Defendant. Hunter Schreck no longer desires that Movant represent him and desires to be self-represented or “pro se.” Defendant and Defendant’s mother (Marcie Schreck) has filed a frivolous law suit in Federal Court cause number2-21CV-220-Z.”

On 11/2/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck to ask if she received his message regarding the “Status Hearing” today.  Marcie Schreck responded “Yes.”  Marcie Schreck informed him that HUNTER is bedridden, but she is going, armed to the teeth with lots of filings.  Marcie Schreck thanked him and asked whether this was a Status or Show Cause hearing.  Billy Maples responded: “Call me please.”  Marcie Schreck asked him to call her to confirm that BROOKS BARFIELD was no longer HUNTER’s attorney.

On 11/2/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds called Marcie Schreck.  He told her that if HUNTER did not come to the Status Hearing, he will revoke the bond, and if he doesn’t, then Judge Dan L. Schaap will do it for him, put a warrant out for his arrest, rearrest HUNTER, and put him back in jail.  Marcie Schreck advised Billy Maples that HUNTER is extremely ill.  He cannot and will not be at the Status Hearing today.  He’s in bed.  Marcie Schreck advised Billy Maples that she has called two doctors asking for letters of confirmation that HUNTER cannot attend.  She reported that she gets voice mails saying it will take 24-hours for them to call back.  Marcie Schreck told him that she truly tried reaching a doctor in this emergency, and no call has been returned.

On 11/2/2021 at approximately 12:30 p.m., BROOKS BARFIELD called Marcie Schreck.  He was lying on the phone.  He asked Marcie Schreck to let him represent HUNTER.  He said “I am a good lawyer.”  Marcie Schreck told him: “NO.”  She had to cut him short as she wasn’t dressed and the calls from Billy Maples and him threatening HUNTER and her with jail were going to cause her to be late for court.  Marcie Schreck has a tape recording of this call.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: I have long since learned that Marcie Schreck has a tape recording of everything. She has successfuly downloaded 15 of her recording devices to a Flash Drive. I believe that resulted in 850 files. She has two different types of recorders that she has not yet figured out how to download.

On 11/2/2021, Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck.  She left her phone at home (to keep it safe in the event she was arrested), so her husband, William Schreck, responded to inform him that she was on her way to the courthouse.  Billy Maples said: “So HUNTER isn’t coming?”  William Schreck responded: “Hunter is not able to make it.”

On 11/2/2021 at 1:31 p.m., Billy Maples of Judy’s Bail Bonds texted Marcie Schreck: “Is HUNTER coming to the hearing?  You requested for me to be here, and you are not.  I’m not seeing you or him.”

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: I believe Billy Maples is part of the Criminal Racketeering Enterprise in Amarillo. It seems to me he is acting as an agent fior the evildoers.

On November 2, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., there was an event called a “hearing” in the 47th Judicial District Court in Amarillo, Texas (state court — criminal action). Hunter Tyler Schreck never received an order or any notice of this event.

On 11/2/2021 at 1:33 p.m., Marcie Schreck walked into the courtroom.  BROOKS BARFIELD was not there.  Marcie Schreck was looking at her papers.  Brad Parker, Bailiff, walked up and handed her a piece of paper from Judge Dan L. Schaap.  Marcie Schreck smiled at him and asked if he was Brad Parker.  He said “I am.” She said “I’m Marcie Schreck, nice to meet you.”  Marcie Schreck shook his hand.

 

BARF bowl
                                                                            Brooks BARField makes me want to BARF.


On 11/2/2021 at 1:43 p.m., BROOKS BARFIELD walked into the courtroom.  Marcie Schreck approached him and said: “May I speak with you?  Billy Maples has threatened to revoke HUNTER’s bond.  You have threatened me.  PLEASE tell the judge HUNTER is extremely ill in bed and can’t come.”  BROOKS BARFIELD would not let Marcie Schreck say more.  Marcie Schreck walked into the courtroom and took a seat behind what she believes was a member of the DA’s Office.  Marcie Schreck was approximately 40-feet from the bench.  She was surprised to see a lot of people in the audience for the hearing.

 

Schaap Judge Dan 900w
                 Judge Dan L. Schaap — Lowlife


On 11/2/2021 at approximately 1:50 p.m., Judge Dan L. Schaap walked in.  A court reporter was there.  BROOKS BARFIELD told the judge HUNTER was not there.  He did not explain why.  BROOKS BARFIELD told the judge that a federal lawsuit was filed last Friday, and “she” named 58 defendants and maybe 100 more.”  BROOKS BARFIELD said: “I put in my withdrawal to you on November 1, 2021.”  He said something about it being a conflict of interest.  The judge and BROOKS BARFIELD then said some legal terms that Marcie Schreck did not understand.  Marcie Schreck had trouble hearing Judge Dan L. Schaap.  She did hear the judge say: “It may be a conflict of interest with me as well.  I don’t know yet.”  The court reporter’s transcript should indicate exactly what was said.

Marcie Schreck raised her hand.  Judge Dan L. Schaap nodded at her.  Marcie Schreck asked: “Your honor, may I speak?”  The judge said: “Yes.”  Marcie Schreck said: “My son is Autistic, and I have education about that.”  Judge Dan L. Schaap immediately told her: “If you cross that boundary with me; you have crossed that boundary with me; you will not like it.  You will see.”  He was very condescending and threatening to Marcie SchreckMarcie Schreck tried to speak politely, but Judge Dan L. Schaap then threatened her.  He said in a louder voice: “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”  Marcie Schreck didn’t, but she said “Your honor, yes, thank you.”  The judge said something about needing to hear from HUNTER about BROOKS BARFIELD.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: Judge Dan L. Schaap is the lowest of low-life judges. I’ve dealt with or been aware of thousands of corrupt judges, but they’re usually just dishonest a$$hole$. Judge Dan L. Schaap ids trying to murder a disabled boy. I hope there is a very special place in Hell for Judge Dan L. Schaap.

On 11/2/2021, after the hearing, Billy Maples told Marcie Schreck he heard the DA and attorneys that they had plans to take her down and arrest her right there.  He said they really wanted to, and if she had said one more word, she would have been arrested and gone to jail.  Billy Maples talked with the same people after the hearing, and they said they were really wanting to arrest Marcie Schreck.

On 11/2/2021 at 7:27 p.m., Marcie Schreck sent an email to BROOKS BARFIELD with a CEASE-AND-DESIST notice [EXHIBIT 210]: “Cease and desist.  Do not contact Hunter or me.  We want NOTHING to do with you except in your capacity as a Defendant in Schreck v. City of Amarillo, Et al. You lied to me today.  You lied to Judge Dan L. Schaap today.  I believe you are someone who finds it impossible to tell the truth.I believe your only interest is harming my family and me. The law and the Rules say you are terminated, so go away.  You have a conflict of interest, as YOU told me. Hunter will be informing the judge (who has no jurisdiction) exactly what he thinks of you.  Hunter had you pegged from the start — someone who does not have his best interests in mind and someone he does not trust.  Mr. BARField, you are INCOMPETENT.”

The evening of 11/2/2021, Marcie Schreck and her husband decided to record a video of HUNTER that they could send to the judge expressing Hunter Schreck’s feelings about BROOKS BARFIELD.  Marcie Schreck’s affidavit shows what HUNTER said. [EXHIBIT 156.]   William Schreck’s affidavit shows what HUNTER said. [EXHIBIT 157.]  HUNTER made it clear he doesn’t want anything to do with BROOKS BARFIELD.

On 11/3/2021, BROOKS BARFIELD wrote a letter to HUNTER SCHRECK and mailed it Certified Mail Return Receipt. [EXHIBIT 163.]

On 11/5/2021, the mailman delivered the 11/3/2021 letter from BROOKS BARFIELD. [EXHIBIT 163.]  No one signed for it.  The green return receipt card had been removed from the envelope before it was delivered.  The letter told HUNTER to communicate directly with him.  This is a clear violation of the Cease-and-Desist and an effort to damage HUNTER with a panic attack and anxiety.

On 11/8/2021, the Register of Actions in the case shows that none of the purported filings in the case that never appeared on the Docket still are not on the Docket. [EXHIBIT 212.]

BROOKS BARFIELD violated the rules of professional conduct; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and more.  HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK had a right to expect BROOKS BARFIELD to abide by Texas law, Texas rules, Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (“TRPC”), and the Constitutions.  HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK had a right to expect BROOKS BARFIELD and JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP to refrain from doing acts that injured HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  BROOKS BARFIELD and JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP have committed professional misconduct and have violated state and federal statutes, Rules, Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (“TRPC”), and the Constitutions.  BROOKS BARFIELD and JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP committed acts that injured HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.

HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK has been under extreme emotional distress for 15 months.  BROOKS BARFIELD intentionally inflicted emotional distress on HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK through defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of civil and Constitutional rights.

 

Barfield law firm 2


BROOKS BARFIELD inflicted emotional distress HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  He acted intentionally and recklessly.

The conduct of BROOKS BARFIELD was extreme and outrageous.  An average member of the community to exclaim “outrageous!”

The activities of BROOKS BARFIELD have been so extreme that it has gone well beyond all possible bounds of decency, and it must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.  The conduct of BROOKS BARFIELD caused extreme distress to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  The distress caused was severe emotional distress to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK.  The outrageous harassment, lies, libel, slander, and defamation are bad alone, but the effect on HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK’s mental health has been severe.

BROOKS BARFIELD has repeatedly ignored Cease-and-Desist notices.  He has repeatedly threatened Marcie Schreck.  He has damaged HUNTER, and Marcie Schreck believes he is attempting to kill HUNTER.  BROOKS BARFIELD makes Marcie Schreck’s entire family fear even leaving their home because of what BROOKS BARFIELD may do personally or may arrange to have done to them.

 

Photo Hunter Schreck and Marcie Schreck happier times 2015 CROPPED 640w
Hunter Tyler Schreck and Marcie Schreck BEFORE Hunter was almost murdered
and suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury

 

Marcie Schreck believes BROOKS BARFIELD is a criminal and is mentally ill.  He has caused HUNTER and Marcie Schreck to fear for their lives.

BILL WINDSOR COMMENT: Thanks to Marcie Schreck for providing this information to me. It comes from her Appolication for Protective Order that she is preparing to file against W BROOKS BARFIELD.

Much more news to report….


 

Other Articles about Hunter Tyler Schreck:

Hunter Tyler Schreck – a Disabled Young Man – has been Victimized by Police, District Attorney, and Pentecostal Church Members in Amarillo Texas

Just Like the Man who has Done Nothing Wrong by Hunter Tyler Schreck

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 1

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 2

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 3

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 4

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit – Chapter 5

Copyright LawlessAmerica.com
Bill Windsor went to high school and college in Lubbock, Texas — just a short drive from Amarillo, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country that he has loved so much. 


 

windsor bill 2012 09 28 cropped tight edited 200w

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 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

 

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com 

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

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

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#HunterTylerSchreck
#HunterSchreck
#MarcieSchreck
#RandallCounty
#RandallCountyTexas
#Amarillo
#AmarilloTexas
#WBrooksBarfield
#brooksbarfield
#traumaticbraininjury
#amarillopolice
#amarillopolicedepartment
#DanielRivera
#AllisonMuncell
#matthewbrush
#SheaLitchie
#danielsmith
#JubileeChurch
#johnstiffmemorialpark
#davidblount
#daveblount
#nathancarrington
#rolondacarrington
#nataleycarrington
#jubileeapostolicchurch
#angelicaesparza
#brayanzubiate
#ChristianMorgan
#VictorPinentel
#AaronGurule
#DanaGurule
#georgehastings
#dennisgreen
#jbeghtel
#vpadilla
#jtinsley
#sgthaley
#samanthabowman
#samanthafontenot
#SamanthaBowmanFontenot
#bushland
#BushlandTexas

 

Facebook Groups Battling Corruption

Fight 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.

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

Benchbook for U.S. Judges - Corruption Edition

 

Order your copy at Amazon.

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

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

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

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

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 200w

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

I copied it from 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

 

42 u s c 1983 n 640w


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

 

1983

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]. Id.

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

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

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

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

[11]. Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[54]. Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[63]. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[91]. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

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

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

Thanks,


windsor bill 1970 bills us army portrait 1970 cropped 200w

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

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

What Bill Windsor has learned about Corruption since 2008


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

William Michael Windsor was found guilty of being NAIVE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Iannazzone Amy Coney Barrett

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

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

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


 

Bill Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not, therefore, reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.   This website is to expose judicial corruption, government corruption, law enforcement corruption, attorney wrongdoing/corruption, and political corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our  Legal Notice and Terms

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com 

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

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

Copyright, 2022, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor

 

Fraudulent Inducement upon the Family of Tom Kibler

 


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

This article was written by Tom Kibler. His full story is at https://www.1694valerielanenewbrightonmn.com/

Continue reading Fraudulent Inducement upon the Family of Tom Kibler

Judge Jim Meyer accused of being Unfit in Case of The Delaney at Lake Waco Nursing Home – Managed by Life Care Services

Judge Jim Meyer (“Oscar”) of Waco, Texas appears to be suffering from an impairment that makes him unfit to be a judge. Cause Number 2021-3814-5 in McLennan County District Court in Waco, Texas…

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Now comes William M. Windsor (“Windsor”), Third-Party Defendant and Counter-Defendant, and files this Motion for Reconsideration:

I ask that all matters before Judge Jim Meyer on January 12, 2022 be reconsidered.  Judge Jim Meyer demonstrated he is unfit for office.  He ignored the facts and the law.  He denied my rights repeatedly.  He was dazed and confused.  He cut the hearing off before it was over and made oral rulings that had absolutely no basis in fact or law.  He literally did not know who I was or why I was there.

If Judge Jim Meyer has dementia or Alzheimer’s, he needs to recuse himself and retire.  He could get a 224-square-foot maintenance closet-like room at The Delaney at Lake Waco.  Another judge should hear this motion.

If Judge Jim Meyer was drunk or under the influence of mind-altering drugs, he needs to recuse himself, retire, and go into rehab.

Attorney Jim Dunnam has admitted that he interfered with the subpoenaed testimony of Wanda Dutschmann.  This is a crime.

Doug Dutschmann committed several crimes during his testimony – false criminal charge against me and Aggravated Perjury.

The events of 1/12/2022 must be reconsidered.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1.                  On January 5, 2022, a hearing was held on Marcie Schreck’s (“MARCIE”) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.  I, a party, was excluded from the hearing.  On January 5, 2022 at 1:07 p.m., I sent an email complaining and asking that my Motion for Rehearing be set.  In it, I asked Judge Jim Meyer to recuse himself. [EXHIBIT 355.]

2.                  On January 6, 2022, Trisha of the 170th Court sent me an email setting my Motion for Rehearing for 1/12/2022. [EXHIBIT 356.] [EXHIBIT 360.]

3.                  This Court held a hearing on 1/12/2022.  It was on my Motion for Rehearing due to my exclusion from the January 5, 2022 Hearing.  Judge Jim Meyer did not allow me to present my motion. 

4.                  He began the hearing by having MARCIE Schreck testify under oath.

5.                  Judge Jim Meyer seemed very confused.  Any honest person who attended the hearing observed that Judge Jim Meyer seems to be unfit for office.

6.                  Judge Jim Meyer sat at the bench giggling at times.  There didn’t appear to be anything going on that was giggle-worthy.  I asked him if that was gas pains or was he laughing at something.  He didn’t respond.  He may not have heard me or understood the question.

7.                  There were objections and motions that he never addressed.

8.                  On multiple occasions, Judge Jim Meyer didn’t know who I was or why I was there.  He kept claiming I wasn’t a party.  I explained it to him.  I was sued by not one, but two of the Defendants, so I was a Third-Party Defendant and a Counter-Defendant.  [EXHIBITS 358 and 359.]  Judge Jim Meyer kept flipping through paper and didn’t seem to know who he was or where he was.

9.                  After a lunch break, Judge Jim Meyer once again did not know who I was or why I was there.  He denied me the right to cross-examine a witness, claiming for perhaps the fourth time that I was not a party.  He looked lost, dazed, and confused.  He clearly was not understanding what was taking place in the courtroom.

10.              Judge Jim Meyer denied my motion for temporary relief when he claimed he knew nothing about it and then heard only my first sentence.

11.              He ended the hearing by very quickly ruling against MARCIE Schreck and me and in favor of the clients of Susan Briones and Jim Dunnam.  He did this when there were witnesses who had been subpoenaed that were still to be called to testify and without listening to the audio recordings he promised to listen to completely before issuing a ruling.

12.              After the hearing, attorney Jim Dunnam told MARCIE Schreck and me that Wanda Dutschmann had been served with a subpoena for the hearing and that he made arrangements to block her from appearing.  That’s a crime.

13.              I suspect Alzheimer’s or Dementia with Judge Jim Meyer.  Judge Jim Meyer is either mentally ill or has a substance abuse problem.  His actions and inactions in the case were beyond outrageous, but his mental issues were equally outrageous.

14.              Rule 8.03 of The Texas Code of Professional Conduct requires that attorneys report him. If they don’t report him, they will have violated the Rules, and I will file a Bar Complaint against them.  I emailed all of them on 1/12/2022 asking them to please advise me if they will file a complaint. [EXHIBIT 357.]

15.              Rule 8.03. Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) Except as permitted in paragraphs (c) or (d), a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate disciplinary authority. (b) Except as permitted in paragraphs (c) or (d), a lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (c) A lawyer having knowledge or suspecting that another lawyer or judge whose conduct the lawyer is required to report pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule is impaired by chemical dependency on alcohol or drugs or by mental illness may report that person to an approved peer assistance program rather than to an appropriate disciplinary authority. If a lawyer elects that option, the lawyer’s report to the approved peer assistance program shall disclose any disciplinary violations that the reporting lawyer would otherwise have to disclose to the authorities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

 

ARGUMENT

1.                  This hearing was a no-brainer.  Unfortunately, Judge Jim Meyer was not fit for the task.  He was clearly unfit to be a judge, and he showed extreme bias against MARCIE Schreck and me.

2.                  MARCIE gave the following testimony and argument in Paragraphs 18 to 104:

3.                  Wanda Dutschmann (GREAT-GRANDMA) was born April 11, 1939.  She has five children, 23 grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren.

4.                  From 1981 to 1985, Lydia Dutschmann, my paternal grandmother, was cared for by me in her home.  Arlene Standrdidge, GREAT-GRANDMAs mother, came down with Alzheimers, and I took Arlene into my home and cared for her from 1992 to 1995.  I currently care for my two special needs adult sons. 

5.                  According to McLennan County records, GREAT-GRANDMA had no power of attorney from April 11, 1939 to purportedly September 8, 2019.

6.                  On September 8, 2019, a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney was filed in McLennan County claiming to make DOUG Dutschmann (“DOUG”) the attorney-in-fact for GREAT-GRANDMA. [EXHIBIT 1. ]   It did not name a co-agent.   It states that authority ceases upon notice of termination .   It was terminated.   Upon information and belief, it was forged, and the notary is fraudulent.  According to GREAT-GRANDM A, i t was no t executed by my MOM where she was living at Westview Manor Nursing Home.  MICHAEL Dutschmann (“MICHAEL”) and DOUG cla i med she had dementia, so I dont believe she could sign , if that was the case .

7.                  On October 15, 2019, a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney was filed in McLennan County claiming to make Michael Dutschmann the attorney-in-fact for GREAT-GRANDMA. [EXHIBIT 2.]  This was done as DOUG had reportedly resigned.  It did not name a co-agent.  It states that authority ceases upon notice of termination.  It was terminated on December 21, 2021.  Upon information and belief, it was forged, and the notary is fraudulent.  According to GREAT-GRANDMA, it was not executed by my MOM where she was living at Westview Manor Nursing Home.  MICHAEL and DOUG claimed she had dementia, so I dont believe she could sign, if that was the case.

8.                  Upon information and belief, GREAT-GRANDMA is paying $3,900 per month for the abuse at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO.  Upon information and belief, MICHAEL and DOUG have been using GREAT-GRANDMAs inheritance to pay this rather than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or the rental trailer on her property.

9.                  I have offered to care for GREAT-GRANDMA in my home.  I have offered to move her to a better facility.

10.              Doug Dutschmann and Michael Dutschmann live in the Waco area and have seized control of GREAT-GRANDMAIn my opinion, this is so they have control of her money and assets.  I dont believe they care about her.  They havent visited her very often.  According to sister KRISSY Matthews, they are using GREAT-GRANDMAs money to pay for the attorney they have retained to defend themselves in this lawsuit.

11.              GREAT-GRANDMA received $100,000 in insurance proceeds from a life insurance policy on her husband, Floyd Dutschmann.  DOUG seized the money, and I believe he has spent it for unauthorized purposes.

12.              Doug Dutschmann and Michael Dutschmann have seized control of Wanda Dutschmanns real property by filing Deeds with McLennan County. [EXHIBITS 3, 4, 5, and 6.]  The transfer by Floyd Dutschmann and GREAT-GRANDMA was to be temporary.  DOUG and MICHAEL have not returned the Deeds to GREAT-GRANDMAs name.  DOUG has been enjoying $500 per month from rental of a trailer on a piece of the property.  GREAT-GRANDMA executed a letter on January 21, 2021 expressing one of her wishes on the property. [EXHIBIT 7.]  Her other wishes are expressed in her Will [EXHIBIT 11].  She modified this on December 23, 2021. [EXHIBIT 351.]

13.              I obtained expensive $6,000 hearing aids for GREAT-GRANDMA, but she was unable to use them.  Her ears are severely impacted with wax, and Scott BUSHONG of The Delaney AT LAKE WACO falsely claims they are not.  I retained an Audiologist, Josh Guerra of Heritage Mobile Hearing, to go see GREAT-GRANDMA.  He reported that GREAT-GRANDMAs ears were badly impacted.  He used a special camera to see deep down in her ear canal.  He took ear impressions on October 7, 2021.  He reported that the staff of The Delaney did not seem to care and appeared to be abusing GREAT-GRANDMA.  He said they were making GREAT-GRANDMA sit in her feces.  Josh had to go demand that The Delaney clean her up.  I have an audio recording of this report. [EXHIBITS 39 and 40.]

14.              Upon information and belief, GREAT-GRANDMAs hearing was never checked by THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO or their doctors and nurses.  No one ever installed the hearing aids or showed GREAT-GRANDMA how to use them until I hired an audiologistI instructed THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO to secure them every night, but upon information and belief, THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO did not.  THE DELANEY will not put the drops in her ears that are needed for her ears to be cleaned out.  At least one of the hearing aids is now missing, and I believe it was stolen.

15.              GREAT-GRANDMA has been placed in the mental unit at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO .  Upon information and belief, no doctor has ever done a proper examination for dementia.  The Medical Records that we have obtained show no examination or testing.  GREAT-GRANDMA does not have dementia.   I believe Doug and Michael put her there to limit her interaction with others and hasten her death.  If GREAT-GRANDMA dies, they will likely succeed in what I believe is the theft of her REAL PROPERTY.

16.              GREAT-GRANDMA has suffered neglect by THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO.  This is detailed in my PETITION, and I will play audio tapes at the Permanent Injunction Hearing.

17.              There isnt even water in GREAT-GRANDMAs room at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO.

18.              GREAT-GRANDMA has been denied assistance with personal hygiene at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO.  She has been allowed to sit in her feces.  She has been allowed to go many days at a time without a bath or a change of clothing.

19.              GREAT-GRANDMA has been denied medical care. 

20.              GREAT-GRANDMA is housed in what is called the Memory Care unit at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO The website for THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO claims Memory Care is for those with Alzheimer s disease and other related dementias.  GREAT-GRANDMA has never been diagnosed with either.  GREAT-GRANDMA is not being treated with medications for dementia.  She apparently never has been.

21.              GREAT-GRANDMA has been denied a way to communicate with the staff of THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO for help except by screaming.  There is no intercom; there is no cord that can be pulled for help; there is no call button; there is no telephone.  There isnt even a tin can with a waxed string.

22.              GREAT-GRANDMA is not safe at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO.

23.              GREAT-GRANDMA has called me many times crying and discussing problems.  I have many audio recordings of this on the Flash Drive and in the DROPBOX. [EXHIBITS 337, 31, 85, 99, 105, 110, 210, 135, 136, 185, 189, 346.]  

24.              I tender EXHIBITS 337, 31, 85, 99, 105, 110, 210, 135, 136, 185, 189, and 346.

25.              Id like to play 34-seconds of EXHIBIT 337 recorded on January 9, 2022. 

[EXHIBIT 337 “Get me out of here. Its bad.  0:00 to 0:34.”]

26.              I tender EXHIBIT 337.

27.              GREAT-GRANDMA asked me to become her power of attorney, and she asked my help in preparing a will.  GREAT-GRANDMA has never had a will.  I came to THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO on December 18, 2021 to see GREAT-GRANDMAHer ears are horribly impacted.  She had no food or water.  She hadnt had a bowel movement in a long time, and her stomach was hurting badly.  Her hearing aids were missing, and she has difficulty hearing

28.              On December 18, 2021, when I visited GREAT-GRANDMA at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO, I found GREAT-GRANDMAs roommate, Barbara H, lying on the floor unconscious in a diaper. [EXHIBIT 204.]  I took this photo.

29.              I tender EXHIBIT 204.

30.              GREAT-GRANDMA told me that she has fallen just like Barbara H multiple times in the bathroom and the room.  Other residents were standing around and came in the room and told me this woman falls all the time, and THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO does nothing.  The so-called aids just holler at them to get up.  It was very clear that Barbara H could not get up or help herself.  MARLENE MORROW just kept yelling for her to get up!  She finally jerked her up and never checked to see if she was injured.  GREAT-GRANDMA told me that MARLENE MORROW is THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO employee who treats her mean regularly. 

31.              On December 18, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA executed a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney, a Medical Power of Attorney, and a Will.  THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO refused to provide a notary or witnesses.  I arranged a notary and witnesses, but THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO refused access. [EXHIBITS 9, 10, and 351.]  THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO had no legal right to refuse access.  GREAT-GRANDMA had the mental ability to make a rational decision.  She had the ability to perceive, appreciate all relevant facts, and to reach a rational judgment upon such facts.

32.              On December 18, 2021, when I visited GREAT-GRANDMA for about four hours, she said she did not have diapers.  She needed pull-ups.  GREAT-GRANDMA called sister KRISSY Matthews to bring her diapers.  KRISSY Matthews never called back.  I called sister KRISSY about this, and she never called back.

33.              On December 19, 2021 and December 20, 2021, I visited GREAT-GRANDMA.

34.              On December 21, 2021, ALYSSA CLARIDY and SCOTT BUSHONG of THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO refused to wheel GREAT-GRANDMA to the front door where two witnesses and a notary were arranged to do their jobs.  Scott BUSHONG refused to transport GREAT-GRANDMA to the front door or front porch.  The people who had been hired were sent home.

35.              On December 21, 2021, SANDRA ROBINSON, SCOTT BUSHONG, and ALYSSA CLARIDY claimed THE DELANEY was being locked down due to COVID.  This was a lie.

36.              I have a legal obligation to remove GREAT-GRANDMA from a dangerous environment.  My PETITION details my efforts.  Rather than save my mother, the police threatened me and GREAT-GRANDMAs 79-year-old friend with arrest.

37.              On December 21, 2021, I was finally allowed to see GREAT-GRANDMA again out in the courtyard.  GREAT-GRANDMA executed a Withdrawal of Power of Attorney that withdrew all rights to Michael Dutschmann or DOUG Dutschmann. [EXHIBIT 12.] 

38.              I tender EXHIBIT 12.

39.              GREAT-GRANDMA was VERY clear in what she was doing.  I gave a copy of the termination to THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO and notified MICHAEL Dutschmann and the WACO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

40.              On December 21, 2021, I went to the McClennan County Clerks Office to file the Statutory Durable Power of Attorney, but I was denied as it has not yet been notarized.

41.              On December 22, 2021, I gave GREAT-GRANDMAs Withdrawal of Power of Attorney for Michael Dutschmann to THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO. [EXHIBIT 12.]  THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO refused to recognize its validity.  Texas Statute Chapter 752 does not require notarization of a withdrawal. [EXHIBIT 13.]  Page 1 of the 2019 Statutory Durable Power of Attorney states: Unless you specify otherwise…the attorney-in-facts authority will continue until (1) you die or revoke the power of attorney.  Pages 4 and 5 of the 2019 Statutory Durable Power of Attorney state:

Termination of Agent s Authority

 

You must stop acting on behalf of the principal if you learn of any event that terminates this power of attorney or your authority under this power of attorney.  An event that terminates this power of attorney or your authority to act under this power of attorney includes:

 

(2) the principals revocation of this power of attorney or your authority;

 

42.              On December 22, 2021, I notified Michael Dutschmann in person that his power-of-attorney had been terminated by GREAT-GRANDMAWilliam Windsor, notified Michael Dutschmann by telephone that his power-of-attorney had been terminated by GREAT-GRANDMA.

43.              On December 22, 2021, I coordinated a notary, two paid witnesses, grandson Hunter Tyler Schreck, and old friend Betty Elliott to meet me at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO for the signing, witnessing, and notary work.  ALYSSA ClaRIdy of THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO told me they were bringing GREAT-GRANDMA down.  They never did. 

44.              On December 23, 2021, Paula SMITH of The Delaney AT LAKE WACO claimed GREAT-GRANDMA has Dementia, and they will not honor her Medical Power of Attorney.  This is on a tape recording. [EXHIBIT 56.]  If she had dementia, she had dementia whenever she purportedly signed any power of attorney, so they should not honor anything.  The employees of THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO have blatantly conspired with MICHAEL Dutschmann, DOUG Dutschmann, KRISSY Matthews, and JILL Perryman.

45.              I was prepared to call 911 for the police and an ambulance, but I held off because ClaRIdy told me GREAT-GRANDMA was on the way down.   This was all a fraud to buy time for THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO to call 911 before I did.   That gave THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO control of the police.   KRISSY Matthews arrived and told anyone who would listen that I am psychotic.  KRISSY Matthews is not a doctor, but she has had several stays in mental hospitals.  Sister JILL Perryman had also spent time in a mental hospital.  I have a one-hour-and-thirty-minute recording f rom the time of my arrival at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO until I departed.

46.              On 12/23/2021, THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO called 911 and charged senior citizens me (age 62) and 79-year-old Betty Elliott with criminal trespassing as we waited for GREAT-GRANDMA to be brought down.  Detective Clark and Officer Green of the Waco Police Department told Betty Elliott and me that we were being issued a Criminal Trespass.  We refused to surrender our licenses as we were being unlawfully seized and detained.

47.              Detective Clark claimed GREAT-GRANDMA said she was fine.  GREAT-GRANDMA did later acknowledge to me that she was frightened by police everywhere and did not know why they were asking.  She said she was fine, meaning no one had tried to assault her or kill her.  GREAT-GRANDMA was not asked specific questions.

48.              December 22, 2021, Detective Clark claimed a medical person examined GREAT-GRANDMA and said she was fine.  GREAT-GRANDMA reports she was never examined.  Detective Clark admitted that GREAT-GRANDMAs inability to have a bowel movement was not addressed.  Detective Clark admitted that her ears were not examined.  I have an audio recording of this. [EXHIBIT 53.]  I later learned that the ambulance was with American Medical ResponseAMR never spoke with me or anyone with the group I had assembled.

49.              On December 23, 2021, Detective Clark and Officer Green of the Waco Police Department said this was a civil matter, not a criminal matter, but threatened BETTY Elliott and me with criminal charges for disturbing the peace if we didnt leave.  BETTY Elliott and I left after being harassed, threatened, and denied access to GREAT-GRANDMA.  It actually is a criminal matter.  Many crimes have been committed.  MICHAEL Dutschmann told the officers:do not take her to the hospital.” [EXHIBIT 53.]

50.              According to the Records Department for the Amarillo Police Department, there was no report filed.

51.              Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 is the law regarding disorderly conduct.  There is no such thing as a crime of disturbing the peace.

52.              Neither BETTY Elliott nor I did any such thing, and we have five witnesses as well as audio recordings. [EXHIBIT 53.]

53.              Detective Clark and Officer Green committed several violations of the law , and they kept GREAT-GRANDMA at risk.

54.              On 12/23/2021 at 2:46 p.m., KRISSY Matthews sent a text message to my husband claiming I was causing a huge disturbance. [EXHIBIT 14.]  She said I will be arrested if I came to THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO again.  KRISSY Matthews claimed MICHAEL Dutschmann has power of attorney, which he does not.  KRISSY Matthews said “me, Jill, Michael, and Doug have all written letters saying we dont want MARCIE to come on the premises of THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO because of her causing a huge disturbance, upsetting mama and causing her stress and falsely accusing Delaney of abusing mama.”  I dont know about the letters, but the rest is all false.  I have tape recordings and witnesses to prove it.  KRISSY Matthews claims MICHAEL Dutschmann is filing a restraining order against me.  That hasnt been done, but brother DOUG Dutschmann has sued Mr. Windsor and me for contacting my mother.  He sued us as WANDA DUTSCHMANN.

55.              I tender EXHIBIT 14.

56.              Since December 23, 2021, THE DELANEY has hung up on me attempting to speak to GREAT-GRANDMA, or they intercept my calls and let them ring forever

57.              On December 23, 2021 at approximately 4:40 p.m., a complaint was made in person to the Waco Police Department by me for elder abuse and a request for an ambulance to go to THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO to take GREAT-GRANDMA to the hospital.  Officer Law spoke by telephone with GREAT-GRANDMA who told him she needed to go to the hospital and did not want to stay at The Delaney. [EXHIBIT 57 .]  Officer Law left the room to speak with his sergeant.  He said that since AMR Ambulance did not find anything wrong, the police would do nothing.  GREAT-GRANDMA said she never saw an ambulance person and was never examined.  Officer Law violated GREAT-GRANDMAs rights and failed to protect her.

58.              I tender EXHIBIT 57.

59.              On December 24, 2021, I returned to Amarillo as I could not reach anyone on the holiday weekend to help save GREAT-GRANDMA.

60.              On December 24, 2021 just after noon, I faxed a letter to GREAT-GRANDMA at 254-870-9819. [EXHIBIT 16.]  The Fax Transmission was successful.  I spoke to GREAT-GRANDMA at about 4 p.m., and she had not been given the faxed letter.  She has never been given the letters we have faxed to her.

61.              On December 26, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA called me three times.  She called on her own; she wanted to know what was going on; and would I still help her.  She had not received the faxed letter.  None of the family had been to see her.  She asked me to take her to the Scott & White Hospital.  She reported that her bowels had not been cleaned out, and nothing had been done to her ears.  She reported that she doesnt have her hearing aids. [EXHIBITS 84, 85.]

62.              On December 25, 2021 and December 26, 2021, I called THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO several times attempting to reach GREAT-GRANDMA.  Alma hung up on me and then my calls rang forever without an answer.  This continued on December 26, 2021 and December 27, 2021. [EXHIBITS 80, 81, 82.]

63.              On December 27, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least two times.  She called on her own.  She reported that her bowels had not been cleaned out, and nothing had been done to her ears.  She reported that she doesnt have her hearing aids. [EXHIBITS 99, 100.]

64.              On December 28, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least seven times.  She called on her own.  She reported that her bowels had not been cleaned out, and nothing had been done to her ears.  She reported that she doesnt have her hearing aids. [EXHIBITS 105, 104, 106, 108.]

65.              On December 29, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least five times.  She called on her own.  She reported that her bowels had not been cleaned out, and nothing had been done to her ears.  She reported that she doesnt have her hearing aids. [EXHIBITS 109, 110, 111.]

66.              On December 30, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least once. 

67.              On December 31, 2021, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least five times.  She called on her own.  She reported that her bowels had not been cleaned out, and nothing had been done to her ears.  She reported that she doesnt have her hearing aids. [EXHIBITS 125, 126.]

68.              On January 1, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least once. 

69.              On January 2, 2022, WINDSOR played a recording for the voice mail of LCS, attorney Susan Briones, Jill Perryman, Krissy Matthews, Joel Nelson, CEO of LCC, Bridgette Uhlemann, in-house counsel for LCC and registered agent for LCS Waco Operations, Scott Bushong, and Barbara Weir,

70.              On January 2, 2022 at approximately 4:50 p.m., WINDSOR called American Medical Response, the ambulance service for the City of Waco.  He reached KayKay.  She dispatched an ambulance to The Delaney AT LAKE WACO.  She said she would call the police to send someone out for a welfare check on Wanda Dutschmann.  Kay-Kay reported that the ambulance was there, but there was a delay.  WINDSOR told me he was pretty sure he knew what that meant – liars from The Delaney AT LAKE WACO denying GREAT-GRANDMA her medical right to go to the hospital.

71.              GREAT-GRANDMA called Marcie Schreck and WINDSOR a little later on January 2, 2022 to say: “…the police came, but they didnt save me.”  “They had the the the thing that you lay down on, whatever you call it, but they took it with them.”  GREAT-GRANDMA felt like she was inches from freedom.  But she was heartbroken when she reported that someone from The Delaney AT LAKE WACO spoke to the ambulance people and the officers, and they took the stretcher but left her behind.  The first 2:11 of EXHIBIT 210 in the dropbox tells the important part of the story. 

72.              On January 2, 2022 at 9:43 pm., WINDSOR sent an email to Defendants. [EXHIBIT 225.]  He attached the audio recording of GREAT-GRANDMA saying Dr. David Fedro had not examined her.  GREAT-GRANDMA says she was never seen by Dr. David Fedro or any doctor. [EXHIBIT 133.]  Upon information and belief, someone impersonated Dr. David Fedro to the police.  If it wasnt for this impersonator, GREAT-GRANDMA would have made it to the hospital, and her documents would have been witnessed and notarized there.  WINDSOR told me he reported criminal complaints against The Delaney AT LAKE WACO.  He told me a demand was made on Michael Dutschmann or financial information.

73.              On January 2, 2022 at 11:20 pm., WINDSOR sent an email to Defendants.  He attached the audio recording of Sergeant Aaron Mitzel of the Waco Police Department saying he spoke with Defendant Dr. David Fedro who told him he evaluated Wanda Dutschmann that day and there was no reason to go to the ER. [EXHIBIT 224.]  GREAT-GRANDMA says she was never seen by Dr. David Fedro or any doctor. [EXHIBIT 133.]  Upon information and belief, someone impersonated Dr. David Fedro to the police.  If it wasnt for this impersonator, GREAT-GRANDMA would have made it to the hospital, and her documents would have been witnessed and notarized there.

74.              On January 2, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least 13 times.

75.              On the evening of January 3, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called to report that her mail had been “intercepted.”  GREAT-GRANDMA wheeled herself to an area where there can sometimes be snacks.  She was expecting mail from me, so when she saw several envelopes addressed to residents laying on the counter, she looked at the addresses to see if any were for her.  Hidden under the stack, she found an envelope without a stamp on it that was addressed to her.

76.              On January 3, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least two times.

77.              On January 3, 2022, WINDSOR told me he called Scott Bushong and left this demand from Marcie Schreck for him.

78.              On January 3, 2022, I sent an email to Defendants demanding return of her stolen FedEx shipment. [EXHIBIT 230.]

79.              On January 4, 2022, I sent an email to Defendants saying: “My Federal Express shipment to my mother, Wanda Dutschmann, was taken by someone with The Delaney AT LAKE WACO.  I demand it be immediately returned by delivering it to my mother and calling me on the phone so I can speak with her while one of the Delaney Defendants is present.  Mom will sign the letter to The Delaney AT LAKE WACO and hand it to the Delaney Defendant.  She will also sign the letter to Michael Dutschmann, and The Delaney must have it delivered to him personally before the hearing on Wednesday.”  M. Margaret signed for it on December 31, 2021.  One or more people opened GREAT-GRANDMAs package, hid a letter to her, and took two stamped letters that were in her FedEx envelope.  This is conversion as well as theft. [EXHIBIT 231.]

80.              On January 4, 2022, WINDSOR informed me he sent an email to Defendants about the burglary at The Delaney AT LAKE WACO and the many crimes he believes have been in this case. [EXHIBIT 229.]

81.              On January 4, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least once.

82.              On January 8, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least five times.

83.              On January 9, 2022, GREAT-GRANDMA called me at least once.

84.              I have not yet been able to calculate how many other times she called

85.              I dont believe Michael Dutschmanns or DOUG Dutschmanns Statutory Durable Powers of Attorney were ever valid.  I believe the signatures are forged and the notary is falsified.  GREAT-GRANDMA reports she never signed any such document before a notary. 

86.              Furthermore, GREAT-GRANDMA revoked the Medical Power of Attorney, as the statute allows.  The Texas Health and Safety Code provides that treatment may not be withheld if GREAT-GRANDMA objects.  She has repeatedly objected to being denied examination by a doctor at a hospital.  I believe The Delaney AT LAKE WACO has violated Texas Health and Safety Code Section 166.152.  I believe the signature was forged.  The Medical Power of Attorney requires two signatures, and the signature of a family member is not allowed.  There was only one purported witness, son DOUG Dutschmann, so the Medical Power of Attorney was never valid.  And, there is no certification to activate it as the statute requires.

87.              Calls, emails, and faxes to all the DEFENDANTS have been ignored.

88.              I provided notice to the DEFENDANTS prior to the filing of the request for a Temporary Injunction.  They were told I would be seeking a Temporary Injunction.  

1.                        GREAT-GRANDMA is without a will, power of attorney, or medical power of attorney, and this will cause probable, imminent, and irreparable injury.  GREAT-GRANDMA needs to go to the hospital, and she needs her assets to be protected.INTRODUCTION

89.               

I respectfully request that the Court issue an order:

1.      granting a Temporary Injunction to direct The Delaney at Lake Waco, LCS Waco Operations LLC, Life Care Companies LLC, Joel D. Nelson, Scott Bushong, Paula Smith, Alyssa Claridy, Michael Dutschmann, Doug Dutschmann, and all DEFENDANTS to cease interfering with my access to Wanda Dutschmann;

 

2.      granting a Temporary Injunction to declare that Wanda Dutschmanns Powers of Attorney were revoked in writing on December 21, 2021, and thereafter in writing and orally;

 

3.      granting a Temporary Injunction to declare that Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 166.155 means the Medical Power of Attorney of Wanda Dutschmann was revoked;

 

4.      directing that a notary and witnesses shall be allowed to come to THE DELANEY or the hospital to witness Wanda Dutschmanns execution of her legal documents;

 

5.     requiring MICHAEL and DOUG Dutschmann to immediately provide full financial records relating to Wanda Dutschmann to me;

90.              That ended MARCIE’s testimony, though there was cross-examination.  MARCIE Schreck has ordered the Hearing Transcript, which SHOULD report what happened.

91.              I, William Windsor, was ultimately given the opportunity to testify and argue, though Judge Jim Meyer didn’t seem to comprehend why.  My testimony and argument detail why the facts and the law mandated that an honest and mentally fit judge had no option but to grant the relief MARCIE Schreck and I requested.  Paragraphs 107 to 152 are what I had to say:

92.              Im not quite sure what my designation is, but Third-Party Defendant is one, Counter-Defendant appears to be another, and now I guess Im a ThirdParty Plaintiff.  I filed  hereby files this Motion for Rehearing because I was excluded from the January 5, 2022 hearing.

93.              Wanda Dutschmann (GREAT-GRANDMA), is a senior.  82-years-old.

94.              GREAT-GRANDMA is being held captive in The D elaney at Lake Waco, and The Delaney at Lake Waco is committing a wide variety of wrongs in denying GREAT-GRANDMAs rights.  GREAT-GRANDMA has no will, no power of attorney, and no medical power of attorney.  MARCIE Schreck and I have been trying to fix that.  The Delaney at Lake Waco , Michael Dutschmann, D oug Dutschmann, Jill Perryman, and Krissy Matthews have conspired to block GREAT-GRANDMAs efforts to have her Statutory Durable Power of Attorney, Medical Power of Attorney, and Last Will and Testament notarized and/or witnessed.

95.              I have read the Transcript of the January 5, 2022 hearing, and I am very disturbed by what I read [EXHIBIT 239 in DROPBOX.]  It seemed to me that you (Judge Jim Meyer) were biased against MARCIE Schreck because she is pro se.  You suggested she get an attorney.  She cant afford an attorney.  I know this to be a fact as I have reviewed the Statement of Inability to Pay which is Docket #1 in this case.  Thats why approximately 50% of the parties in courtrooms today are pro se.  MARCIE Schreck was denied the opportunity to present her case, and then you ruled against her with no explanation.
1.                  MARCIE Schreck and I are here today to ask for three things:

(1)    Temporary Injunction to declare that WANDA DUTSCHMANNs Powers of Attorney were revoked in writing on 12/21/2021, and thereafter in writing and orally. [EXHIBIT 12.]  The Flash Drive and dropbox contain dozens of notices of the withdrawal.

(2)    Temporary Injunction to declare that Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 166.155 means the Medical Power of Attorney was revoked. [EXHIBIT 29.]

(3)    Temporary Injunction to stop The Delaney at LAKE WACO and the other Defendants from blocking access to the notary and witnesses needed to witness WANDA DUTSCHMANN signing her new will, power of attorney, and medical power of attorney.  MARCIE Schreck is an heir in her will, as are all of her children, and MARCIE is named as her Medical Power of Attorney and Statutory Durable Power of Attorney.  Im also named as her attorney-in-fact on legal matters in her Statutory Durable Power of Attorney.

2.                  The DEFENDANTS have denied and blocked these.  They have no such legal right.

3.                  Your honor, WANDA DUTSCHMANN recorded a message to you on January 8, 2022.  [EXHIBIT 235.]  [Judge Jim Meyer asked that recordings he should listen to before making a ruling should be identified for him as ZOOM made it hard for him to hear.]

4.                  As to the first request for relief today, it is to have you declare that WANDA DUTSCHMANNS powers of attorney were revoked. 

5.                  Texas Statute Chapter 752 is the law for Statutory Durable Powers of Attorney.  This statute does not require notarization of a withdrawal. [EXHIBIT 13 is the statute.]  EXHIBIT 1 is the purported Statutory Durable Power of Attorney in DOUG Dutschmanns name.  EXHIBIT 2 is the purported Statutory Durable Power of Attorney in Michael Dutschmanns name.  Page 1 of the 2019 Statutory Durable Power of Attorney states: “Unless you specify otherwise…the attorney-in-facts authority will continue until (1) you die or revoke the power of attorney.”  Pages 4 and 5 of the 2019 Statutory Durable Power of Attorney state:

Termination of Agents Authority

 

“You must stop acting on behalf of the principal if you learn of any event that terminates this power of attorney or your authority under this power of attorney.  An event that terminates this power of attorney or your authority to act under this power of attorney includes: “(2) the principals revocation of this power of attorney or your authority;”

 

6.                  WANDA DUTSCHMANN has revoked that purported Statutory Durable Power of Attorney, has recorded messages confirming she revoked it, and on December 22, 2021, MARCIE Schreck notified Michael Dutschmann in person that his purported power-of-attorney had been terminated by WANDA DUTSCHMANNThe revocation is EXHIBIT 12 to MARCIEs Complaint and her First Amended Complaint.  It is on the Flash Drive.  I notified Michael Dutschmann by telephone that his purported power-of-attorney had been terminated by WANDA DUTSCHMANN.  Since then, dozens of notices have been sent to the DEFENDANTS because they continue to violate the law.  [DOUG Dutschmann testified that he had received notice of the revocation.]

7.                  EXHIBITS 31, 185, and 189 are among a number of recordings by GREAT-GRANDMA revoking her powers of attorney to Michael Dutschmann and Doug Dutschmann .  [Judge Jim Meyer said he would listen to them before rendering a decision.  He failed to do his duty as a judge.]

8. As to revocation of the purported Medical Power of Attorney, Texas Health and Safety Code Sec. 166.155 makes it crystal clear that it, too, has been revoked.  It reads: REVOCATION; (a) A medical power of attorney is revoked by: (1) oral or written notification at any time by the principal to the agent or a licensed or certified health or residential care provider or by any other act evidencing a specific intent to revoke the power, without regard to whether the principal is competent or the principal s mental state ; or (b) A principals licensed or certified health or residential care provider who is informed of or provided with a revocation of a medical power of attorney shall immediately record the revocation in the principal s medical record and give notice of the revocation to the agent and any known health and residential care providers currently responsible for the principals care.  EXHIBITS 343 and 348 show that THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO violated this important law. [emphasis added.]

9. The Medical Power of Attorney says: “I understand that this power of attorney exists indefinitely from the date I execute this document unless I establish a shorter time or revoke the power of attorney . [emphasis added.]

10.              The Medical Power of Attorney says: “Your agent is obligated to follow your instructions when making decisions on your behalf.”

11.              The Medical Power of Attorney says: “Once you have signed this document, you have the right to make health care decisions for yourself as long as you are able to make those decisions, and treatment cannot be given to you or stopped over your objection.  You have the right to revoke the authority granted to your agent by informing your agent or your health or residential care provider orally or in writing or by your execution of a subsequent medical power of attorney.

12.              In addition, I believe the medical power of attorney is a fraud.  [A Texas Medical Power of Attorney requires two witnesses, and one may not be a relative.  There was only one witness, not two, and it was DOUG Dutschmann, which is not allowed.]

13.              Further to the Medical Power of Attorney, we had been unable to obtain any evidence that it was ever activated.  There is no certification in writing that GREAT-GRANDMA is unable to make her own healthcare decisions.  The Medical Records reflect no such certification, and this is a requirement under Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 166: “Your agents authority is effective when your doctor certifies that you lack the competence to make health care decisions.” [EXHIBIT 332, Page 3.]  [Records produced prior to and at the hearing prove there is no certification.]

14.              I tendered EXHIBIT 332.

15.              Your Honor, all this has been done repeatedly and ignored by every DEFENDANT.

16.              I tendered EXHIBITS 343 and 348.

17.              As to the third request for injunctive relief, Marcie seeks a Temporary Injunction to stop The Delaney at Lake Waco and the other Defendants from blocking access to the notary and witnesses needed to witness WANDA DUTSCHMANN signing her first ever will, power of attorney, and medical power of attorney. 

18.              The Defendants have committed unspeakable wrongdoing in blocking access and denying a helpless person of what she desperately seeks.  The Flash Drive and DROPBOX contain massive proof of this.  They wont stop unless this Court requires them.

19.              EXHIBIT 56 is one audio recording of denial of access and a threat.

20.              I tendered EXHIBIT 56.

21.              Michael Dutschmann doesnt even want to be the power of attorney; he says this in the audio recording in EXHIBIT 71.  EXHIBIT 70 features Michael Dutschmann hanging up on WANDA DUTSCHMANN when she tried to speak with him.

22.              EXHIBIT 99 is an Audio Recording of WANDA DUTSCHMANN when she called Marcie Schreck saying she needed to get to hospital, bad, cant hang on much longer, sick, couldnt eat .

23.              EXHIBIT 137 is a January 2, 2022 Audio Recording of Waco Police Sergeant Aaron Mitzel calling Marcie Schreck to report that Dr . David Fedro said he saw WANDA DUTSCHMANN and there were no problems.

24.              EXHIBIT 133 is a 1/2/2022 Audio-Recording-of- WANDA DUTSCHMANN calling Marcie to report that Dr David Fedro has not examined her; no doctor has. [Records produced prior to the hearing prove he had not examined her.]

25.              I tendered EXHIBIT 133

26.              EXHIBITS 343 and 348 are purported to be the medical records of WANDA DUTSCHMANN produced by Dr. David Fedro and THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO.

27.              I tendered EXHIBITS 343 and 348

28.              Your honor, I could present evidence for weeks.  The DEFENDANTS have violated the law repeatedly, have tortiously interfered with MARCIEs rights and my rights.

29.              The DEFENDANTS have harmed GREAT-GRANDMA through neglect.  EXHIBITS 343 and 348 show that GREAT-GRANDMA has never been seen by a doctor with the credentials necessary to diagnose dementia or Alzheimers.  The records show she has never received medications used to treat Alzheimers or Dementia.  EXHIBITS 258 and 259 are Mayo Clinic reports that explain the diagnosis process and identify the medications.  The records show she has never had her hearing checked.  The records show GREAT-GRANDMA has been suffering with constipation the entire time she has been at THE DELANEY AT LAKE WACO. 

30.              I tendered EXHIBITS 258 and 259.

31.              EXHIBIT 286 is the medical records from Westview Manor nursing Home on January 27, 2015.  It purportedly diagnosed GREAT-GRANDMA with Alzheimers at the time she was admitted.  No doctor.  No tests.  No medication.  Outrageous.  Upon information and belief, daughter KRISSY Matthews gave the diagnosis to a secretary. [MARCIE believes it was DOUG’s ex-wife, Sheila.] 

32.              I tendered EXHIBIT 286.

33.              In order to obtain a temporary injunction, a party must prove a cause of action, a probable right to the relief sought, and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim.  MARCIE Schreck has met these requirements.  She has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.  WANDA DUTSCHMANN is without a will, power of attorney, or medical power of attorney, and this will certainly cause probable, imminent, and irreparable injury to her.  And to MARCIE Schreck, as the loving daughter denied the contractual relationship that her MOM requestedWANDA DUTSCHMANN needs to go to the hospital and see a real doctor, not a chiropractor, and she needs her assets and her life to be protected.  She could die at any moment.  That would irreparably harm MARCIE Schreck.

34.              The defendants have interfered with the prospective contracts between WANDA DUTSCHMANN and MARCIE Schreck and me.  The DEFENDANTS have interfered with the STATUTORY DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY, MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, and last will and testament.

35.              There is an absolute probability that MARCIE Schreck and I would have entered into a contractual relationship because WANDA DUTSCHMANN has already signed the STATUTORY DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY, MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, and last will and testameNt. [EXHIBITS 9, 10, 11 , 251 .]  

36.              I tendered EXHIBITS 9, 10, 11, and 251.

37.               Independently tortious or unlawful acts by the defendants prevented the relationship from occurring.  These have been detailed in the STATEMENT OF FACTS in MARCIEs First Amended Complaint and on the Flash Drive .  DEFENDANTS have taken almost incomprehensible efforts to block MARCIE Schreck from obtaining the signatures of a notary and witnesses on the contracts.

38.              The defendants did such acts with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or the defendants knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct.

39.              MARCIE Schreck suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the defendants interference.  She has been denied the right to act for her mother and protect her She has been denied the right to enforce WANDA DUTSCHMANNs medical choices.  She has been denied the benefits granted to MARCIE Schreck and her family in the last will and testameNt She has been threatened with arrest, which harmed her .   And now, Doug Dutschmann has sued MARCIE Schreck and me in the name of WANDA DUTSCHMANN.  DOUG Dutschmann had no authority to do that, and WANDA DUTSCHMANN is very upset about that.

40.              DEFENDANTS have intentionally and recklessly inflicted mental suffering and emotional distress on MARCIE Schreck.  Their conduct has been outrageous.  Their conduct has caused and continues to cause emotional distress to MARCIE Schreck.  The emotional distress has been and is severe.  They are calling and trying to stir up trouble with her children and with her husband.  It makes her sick at her stomach that they have done so much to hurt her.  When the jury hears the whole story, they will certainly say “This is outrageous .”

41.              Your Honor, please grant the Temporary Restraining Order.

(4)    Temporary Injunction to declare that WANDA DUTSCHMANNs Powers of Attorney were revoked in writing on 12/21/2021, and thereafter in writing and orally. [EXHIBIT 12.]  The Flash Drive and dropbox contain dozens of notices of the withdrawal.

(5)    Temporary Injunction to declare that Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 166.155 means the Medical Power of Attorney was revoked.

(6)    Temporary Injunction to stop The Delaney and the other Defendants from blocking access to the notary and witnesses needed to witness MARCIEs mother signing her new will, power of attorney, and medical power of attorney.  MARCIE is an heir in her will, as are all of her children, and MARCIE is named as her Medical Power of Attorney, and Statutory Durable Power of Attorney.  I am also named as her attorney-in-fact on legal matters in her Statutory Durable Power of Attorney.

42.              I indicated that I called Wanda Dutschmann as a witness and would also call Doug Dutschmann, Michael Dutschmann, Scott Bushong, and Aaron Mitzel.  Judge Jim Meyer ignored my right to examine these subpoenaed witnesses.

43.              Texas Penal Code 36.05 is Tampering with a Witness.  Jim Dunnam is guilty of this crime as is Susan Briones and her clients:

“(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to influence the witness, he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit on a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding, or he coerces a witness or a prospective witness in an official proceeding: (2) to withhold any testimony, information, document, or thing; (4) to absent himself from an official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned.”

44.              In his testimony, DOUG Dutschmann said I had committed forgery.  This is a crime.  DOUG Dutschmann lied repeatedly under oath, and we have proof.  He committed Aggravated Perjury.

45.              There was other noteworthy testimony and evidence at the Hearing.

46.              I will add these charges to the information I am preparing at the request of the McLennan County Criminal District Attorney’s Office.

47.              I have filed a Request for Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  Unfortunately, Judge Jim Meyer may not remember anything.

48.              GREAT-GRANDMA called MARCIE Schreck yesterday afternoon.  MARCIE told her that she couldn’t see her again or talk to her.  GREAT-GRANDMA sobbed and sobbed.  MARCIE bawled.  In a subsequent call from GREAT-GRANDMA, I assured her we would never stop trying to help her.

49.              I told GREAT-GRANDMA we shouldn’t be speaking with her because I didn’t want to be violating an order.  But then I remembered that Susan Briones had a blank in her proposed order for a Bond amount.  A quick Google, and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 684 appeared.  I emailed Susan Briones and Jim Dunnam to say it looks like the temporary relief is not in place. [EXHIBIT 361.]  They have not responded.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, William Windsor respectfully requests that the oral pronouncements of Judge Jim Meyer in the Hearing of January 12, 2022 be reconsidered, preferably by a judge who is fit to be a judge; and for such further relief as the fit judge finds appropriate.

Submitted this 13th day of January, 2022,

/s/ William M. Windsor_____________
William M. Windsor, Proudly Pro Se
100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3
Leesburg, Florida 34748
Pro-Se-1@outlook.com
windsorinmontana@yahoo.com

DECLARATION
My name is William M. Windsor.  My date of birth is October 2, 1948.  My address is 100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3, Leesburg, Florida 34748, Lake County, USA.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.
Executed in Lake County, State of Florida, on the 13th day of January, 2022,
/s/ William M. Windsor_____________
William M. Windsor, Proudly Pro Se
100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3
Leesburg, Florida 34748
Pro-Se-1@outlook.com
windsorinmontana@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing as follows:

The Delaney at Lake Waco, LCS Waco Operations LLC, Life Care Companies LLC, Joel Nelson, Scott Bushong, Paula Smith, Alyssa Claridy, Marlene Morrison, Alma Morrow, Connie Moore, Sandra Robinson, 
M. Margaret:
LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2000, Dallas, Texas 75201
214-722-7100 – Fax: 214-722-7111
Susan E. Briones State Bar No. 24040523 Susan.Briones@lewisbrisbois.com
Nichol L. Bunn State Bar No. 00790394 Nichol.Bunn@LewisBrisbois.com

Dr. David Fedro:
Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP
Three Galleria Tower
13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000, Dallas, Texas 75240
972-980-3262 – Fax: 972-934-9200

Craig H. Myers cmyers@feesmith.com

Barbara D. Weir:
SPROTT NEWSOM QUATTLEBAUM & MESSENGER, PC
MICHELE QUATTLEBAUM
State Bar No. 16423400
2211 Norfolk St., Suite 1150, Houston, Texas 77098
713-523-8338 – 713-523-9422
Quattlebaum@sprottnewsom.com

Doug Dutschmann, Michael Dutschmann, Krissy Matthews:
DUNNAM & DUNNAM LLP
4125 West Waco Drive, Waco, Texas 76714-8418
254-753-6437 Fax: 254-753-7434
JIM DUNNAM State Bar No. 06258010
MASON VANCE DUNNAM State Bar No. 24108079
jimdunnam@dunnamlaw.com, masondunnam@dunnamlaw.com

Kerri Jill Perryman:
c/o Doug Dutschmann, Hatada Ranch, 150 FM-854, Valley Mills, TX 76689, 254-644-3283
jill.buildmyhome@gmail.com

City of Waco, Waco Police Department, Detective John Clark, Officer Tyler Green, Officer Paul Law:
HALEY & OLSON, P.C.
100 N. Ritchie Road, Suite 200
Waco, Texas 76712
(254) 776-3336 — Telecopier: (254) 776-6823
BRANDON R. OATES, State Bar No. 24032921, boates@haleyolson.com
DAVID SHAW, State Bar No. 24084641, dshaw@haleyolson.com

American Medical Response:
6800 Woodway Drive, Woodway, Texas 76712, 833-267-9226, Fax: 833-922-3292
AMRRecruitingQuestions@amr.net

Marcie Schreck:
6302 Oakcrest Lane
Amarillo, Texas 79109
254-651-7078
StarSchreck7@outlook.com

William Michael Windsor:
100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3
Leesburg, Florida 34748
Pro-Se-1@outlook.com

This 13th day of January, 2022,                                                        
/s/ William M. Windsor_____________
William M. Windsor, Proudly Pro Se
100 East Oak Terrace Drive, Unit B3
Leesburg, Florida 34748
Pro-Se-1@outlook.com



Bill Windsor graduated from Monterey High School and Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas — not too far from Waco, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country he has loved so much. 


 

windsor bill 1979 closeup of bill tan 1979 200w


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 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

 

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com 

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

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

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#TheDelaneyAtLakeWaco
#LifeCareServices

 

William Windsor sues The Delaney at Lake Waco Nursing Home – Managed by Life Care Services

windsor bill 2014 09 05 navy shirt cropped 200w

A lawsuit has been filed by William M. Windsor against The Delaney at Lake Waco, a senior living facility in Waco, Texas. Bill Windsor filed the lawsuit after he was sued by The Delaney at Lake Waco in an effort to block his freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Cause Number 2021-3814-5 in McLennan County District Court in Waco, Texas…

Continue reading William Windsor sues The Delaney at Lake Waco Nursing Home – Managed by Life Care Services