William M. Windsor’s wife has had her Petition for Writ of Mandamus DENIED by United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit judges Gerald Bard Tjoflat (shown here), Ed Carnes, and William H. Pryor.
In so doing, they demonstrate how they regularly commit crimes of obstruction of justice.
Bill Windsor’s wife, who is not a party to any lawsuit, was subpoenaed to produce her personal financial and medical records….
Her personal financial records and medical records had absolutely nothing to do with the civil action in which they were subpoenaed. There was no legal justification whatsoever for the subpoena; it was merely harassment.
She filed not one, not two, but THREE notices of appeal with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
But amazingly, none of them ever appeared on the docket or were processed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. They disappeared off the face of the earth.
Judge William S. Duffey and the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia violated the rules and the law repeatedly in causing these notices of appeal to disappear. There is absolute proof that the notices of appeal were each received by the Clerk of the Court (which constitutes filing). The notices were proper, timely-filed, valid, and constitute an essential right that we Americans are supposed to have.
The excuse that the judges are using is that the notices of appeal may have been forged. Utterly ridiculous. Overwhelming proof was in the record of the court, including about 80 times she signed in the case, passports over the last 30 years, her driver’s license, five credit cards, real state contracts, and more. Included are two documents where both of us signed in front of a notary, and the notary reviewed our drivers’ licenses and attested that it was us and that we signed in front of her. Signatures #39, 40, and 41 are the ones that the judges are pretending may be forged. As you can see, they are the same as the 102 others.
Why in the world would anyone forge a notice of appeal and pay the filing fee of $455 (three times) to do so? It makes no sense whatsoever. It shows the extent to which judges will lie in committing crimes of obstruction of justice. District Court Judge William S. Duffey didn’t want the case stayed by appeal because that would interfere with his criminal acts against me. So, he lies, and then the judges of the Eleventh Circuit know to support his lies.
Federal judges in Georgia do not care about the facts or the law. They commit crimes regularly. I have yet to find an honest judge in Georgia, and I look every day.
I wrote an article about How Judges Commit Crimes a few weeks ago.
These are some of the techniques the judges used in this matter:
Ignore the Law
One of the primary techniques used by corrupt judges is to simply ignore the law. One party cites the law and overwhelming case law. The favored party doesn’t have the law on their side. The judge simply ignores the law and rules against the party that was legally right. In one instance, I presented literally thousands of cases that proved that I was right. In fact, there had never been a case in any court where there was a ruling other than one that would be in my favor. But Judge Orinda D. Evans had one and only one motive, so she ignored the law and ruled against me. The same is true with Judges William S. Duffey, Thomas W. Thrash, Joel F. Dubina, Edward Earl Carnes, Rosemary Barkett, Frank M. Hull, James Larry Edmondson, Stanley Marcus, William H. Pryor, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Susan H. Black, and Charles R. Wilson.
In my wife’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Panel of Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor ignored the law about filing.
The Panel recognized (ORDER, P.2 ¶2) that the District Court has a ministerial duty to forward notices of appeal that are filed in the District Court. The Panel claimed there was no proof that the November 5, 2010 Notice of Appeal was received but proof was provided (PWM Exh.6 and ¶29), and additional proof is provided in Exhibit B, ¶10 and Exhibit 32.) The Panel ignored the facts and rules and cited case law that does not support the Panel’s erroneous position that a District Court can block a notice of appeal.
She filed notices of appeal on November 5, 2010, April 11, 2011, and April 28, 2011. Each of the notices was received by the CLERK, and receipt constitutes filing. The District Court has no legal right to block the docketing and processing of anything that is properly presented to the CLERK. Receipt is proven in these sworn paragraphs to PWM: 29, 47, 49, 53, 54; these exhibits to PWM: 25, 27, 33, 34; and these exhibits to Exhibit B hereto: 32, 14, 15, 16, and 34.
FRCP Rule 5(d)(2): “A paper is filed by delivering it: (A) to the clerk” [emphasis added.]
it is settled law that delivery of a pleading to a proper official is sufficient to constitute filing thereof. United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897 (1916); Milton v. United States, 105 F.2d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 1939). In Greeson v. Sherman, 265 F. Supp. 340 (D.C.Va.1967). (Freeman v. Giacomo Costa fu Andrea, 282 F. Supp. 525 (E.D.Pa. 04/5/1968).)
Failing to file documents presented and reflect the documents on the docket is a failure to perform the ministerial duties of the Clerk of the Court. [emphasis added.] (Wetmore v. Karrick, 27 S. Ct. 434, 205 U.S. 141 (U.S. 03/11/1907).) (See also In re Estate of Davison, 430 N.E.2d 222, 223 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981); Roesch-Zeller, Inc. v. Hollembeak, 124 N.E.2d 662, 664 (Ill. App. Ct. 1955); Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279 (7th Circuit, 08/13/2004); Sanders v. Department of Corrections, 815 F. Supp. 1148, H49 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Williams v. Pucinski, 01C5588 (N.D.Ill. 01/13/2004).) (See also In re Halladjian, 174 F. 834 (C.C.Mass.1909); U.S., to Use of Kinney v. Bell, 127 F. 1002 (C.C.E.D.Pa.1904); State ex rel. Kaufman v. Sutton, 231 So.2d 874 (Fla.App.1970); Malinou v. McElroy, 99 R.I. 277, 207 A.2d 44 (1965); State ex rel. Wanamaker v. Miller, 164 Ohio St. 176, 177, 128 N.E.2d 110 (1955.); Daniel K. Mayers Et Al., v. Peter S. Ridley Et Al. No. 71-1418 (06/30/72, DC Circuit.) [emphasis added.]
“where the law requires or authorizes a party to file it, it simply means that he shall place it in the official custody of the Clerk.” (Milton v. United States., 105 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 07/06/1939).) Johansson v. Towson, 177 F. Supp. 729 (M.D.Ga. 02/17/1959). (See also Poynor v. Commissioner, 5th Cir. 1936, 81 F.2d 521. (See also Wampler v. Snyder, 1933, 62 App. D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195. (Phinney v. Bank of Southwest National Association, 335 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 08/05/1964); U.S. v. Missco Homestead Ass’n Inc., 185 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 11/01/1950); Dienstag v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 164 F. Supp. 603 (S.D.N.Y. 11/18/1957); Thorndal v. Smith, Wild, Beebe & Cades, 339 F.2d 676 (8th Cir. 01/04/1965); Lone Star Producing v. Gulf Oil, 208 F. Supp. 85 (E.D.Tex. 07/17/1962); Cintron v. Union Pacific R. Co., 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1987); C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1153 (1969); United States v. Dae Rim Fishery Co., 794 F.2d 1392, 1395 (9th Cir. 1986); Loya v. Desert Sands Unified School Dist., 721 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1983); Stone Street Capital, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 300 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Md. 11/06/2003); Central States, SE & SW Pension v. Paramount Liquor, 34 F.Supp.2d 1092 (N.D.Ill. 02/09/1999); Ray v. United States, 57 S. Ct. 700, 301 U.S. 158 (U.S. 04/26/1937).) [emphasis added.]
Since she has proven that she filed THREE (3) notices of appeal but has been denied the protections of the appeals and the rights thereto, this Panel must reconsider and grant the PWM.
The Relief sought in PWM ¶¶ 7 and 8 and prayer ¶¶ (5) and (6) was denied with an inapplicable rule and no case law to support the Panel’s order. The Panel claims there is an issue with the signature on the appeal (ORDER, P.2 ¶3), but this is totally incorrect. The PWM was verified (so it was a sworn affidavit), and there was no evidence before the Panel to dispute anything that she swore to be true. Her valid Notices of Appeal were not docketed or processed by the CLERK as required by the rules. (See PWM ¶¶ 29, 47, 49, and 53.)
The Panel claims there is no proof that the November 5, 2010 notice of appeal was received by the District Court because it isn’t shown on the docket, but that is because of obstruction of justice by the CLERK and Judge Duffey. She has sworn it was presented to the CLERK. (PWM ¶29.) PWM Exhibit 6 is the November 5, 2010 Notice of Appeal. It was received by the CLERK. It was hand-delivered by Courier Connection. The signed receipt is Exhibit 13 to Exhibit 34. The Affidavit of William M. Windsor (Exhibit 34 to Exhibit B hereto) confirms that the delivery to the CLERK on November 5, 2010 included a Notice of Filing and Notice of Appeal for Windsor and a Notice of Filing and Notice of Appeal for my wife. The Docket in the Underlying Action shows Windsor’s filings but not my wife’s (Docket #102 and 103.) The refund check to my wife from the U.S. Treasury bearing the stamped signature of James N. Hatten, the Clerk of the Court, is Exhibit 32 to Exhibit B hereto. It proves the Notice of Appeal was received. Exhibit B ¶38 explains this in detail.
The District Court did not have the authority to dismiss the notice of appeal. Her right of appeal is assured, but the District Court violated her rights.
Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A district court cannot dismiss an appeal.”); Liles v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 414 F.2d 612, 614 (4th Cir. 1969) (“Neither by the statutes of the United States nor the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is the district court given the power to deny review by this court of a case in which an appeal as of right is assured.”). (Patel v. Wooten, No. 07-1030 (10th Cir. 02/12/2008); Dickerson v. McClellan, No. 94-5206 (6th Cir. 12/09/1996).) (See also Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo Ass’n, Inc., 895 F.2d 711, 713 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1983), Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 08/26/1998).)
As a preliminary matter, we address the appellants’ argument that we are compelled to dismiss the appeal and to vacate the opinion in light of the district court’s dismissal of this case on August 2, 1989. As a consequence of that dismissal, the appellants argue that the case became moot. The appellants filed their notice of appeal on April 29, 1988. The appeal was docketed on May 5, 1988. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 401, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225, 228 (1982); Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379, 105 S. Ct. 1327, 1331, 84 L. Ed. 2d 274, 281 (1985), reh’g denied, 471 U.S. 1062, 105 S. Ct. 2127, 85 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1985). The district court retains only the authority to act in aid of the appeal, to correct clerical mistakes or to aid in the execution of a judgment that has not been superseded. See e.g., Matter of Thorp, 655 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Panel erred by claiming there are “legitimate concerns regarding the authenticity of the signature on the April 28, 2011 notice of appeal” (ORDER, P. 2 ¶3). This is not a fact. There are no legitimate concerns. A review of every signature of my wife in the record reveals that they are all her signatures. Additional undeniable proof is in Exhibit B hereto, ¶6-40 and Exhibits 33 and 34 thereto. (See also my wife’s sworn statements in PWM ¶¶ 29, 47, 49, 53, 54 and Exhibit 35.)
FRCP Rule 11(a) does not allow a court to strike a paper that is “promptly corrected after being called to the party’s attention.” Judge Duffey issued an order requiring my wife to sign above her signature stamp, and she did. (See Exhibit B hereto ¶¶20-22.) The Panel ignored this rule. There is no rule and no case law to give a District Court the legal right to block any signed paper.
No honest judge can claim that my wife’s signature has not been documented again and again and again. Claiming it is not valid is simply a convenient lie to block the valid appeal. Exhibit B hereto is an affidavit in which she provides copies of everything she can locate with her signature. They all match the signature on the notice of appeal and the signature on the PWM and on this Motion for Reconsideration. (See PWM Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45, and Exhibit 33 to Exhibit B hereto.)
The Panel claims the district court will deal with the April 28, 2011 Notice of Appeal “expediently.” (ORDER, P.2 ¶4 and P.3 ¶1.) Judge Duffey has failed to do so, and he has refused to act when requested. (See Exhibit 34 to Exhibit B hereto, ¶ and Exhibits 10 and 11 thereto.)
This Panel must compel the CLERK to file my wife’s Notices of Appeal, and this Panel must order a stay as of the first Notice of Appeal on November 5, 2010 (PWM Exhibit 6). This Court must order that all orders issued since November 5, 2010 be vacated.
Cite Invalid Law
Sometimes a judge will feel like citation of case law is needed to support their ruling. So, they claim a case applies when it doesn’t. Judge William S. Duffey has done this a number of times. He cites a case in his orders, and then when I review those cases, I find that they actually proved my position. But he ruled against me because he needed to in order to shield his good friend, Judge Orinda D. Evans, from criminal prosecution and impeachment.
The Panel erroneously cited Becker v. Montgomery in support of its ORDER, but this binding precedent provides that BGW must prevail in this PWM. It proves her points and disproves the Panel’s erroneous position.
“In sum, the Federal Rules require a notice of appeal to be signed. That requirement derives from Civil Rule 11(a), and so does the remedy for a signature’s omission on the notice originally filed. On the facts here presented, the Sixth Circuit should have accepted Becker’s corrected notice as perfecting his appeal. We therefore reverse the judgment dismissing Becker’s appeal and remand the case for further proceedings.” (Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 532 U.S. 757, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 149 L.Ed.2d 983, 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (U.S. 05/29/2001).) (See also Scarborough v. Principi, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 541 U.S. 401, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (U.S. 05/03/2004); Wash v. Johnson, 343 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 08/12/2003); De Aza-Paez v. United States, 343 F.3d 552 (1st Cir. 09/15/2003).) [emphasis added.]
Ignore the Facts
Judges don’t address points raised by parties who aren’t favored. I find appellate judges are even more dishonest than lower court judges when it comes to ignoring the issues, facts, statutes, and case law. Lie about the Facts in Orders Lying under oath is perjury. Judges are always under oath, and a judge is supposed to never say or write anything that isn’t true. So, when a judge knowingly lies in orders for the purpose of ruling against a party for the judge’s criminal reasons, it is a criminal violation of perjury. Each such instance is a separate count. In my case, Judge Evans has committed hundreds and hundreds of counts of perjury. The record filed with the Court proves that she lied, but she gets away with it because the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ judges will lie to protect their fellow judge. I have many counts of perjury against Judge Duffey and Judge Thrash as well.
In my wife’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor ignored ALL of the facts. Her affidavits were sworn under penalty of perjury, and there was no evidence submitted by anyone else. But they ignored it all. They ignored the signatures, the undeniable proof that the notices of appeal were received and thus filed yet never docketed or processed. They ignored everything.
Ignore Issues
Another favorite technique is to simply ignore issues in orders. Judge Evans has not responded to motions on a timely basis, and then she takes many motions at once and rules on them. This buries the fact that she ignored motions where her ruling could not possibly be explained. So, rather than make up an explanation, she just ignores those tough issues. Judge Duffey often ignores the issues, and Judge Thrash always ignores the issues.
In my wife’s Petition for Writ of mandamus, Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor ignored several of the key issues.
This Panel provided NO explanation of any type in its ORDER on this vitally important issue — that she filed a Motion for Protective Order that Judge Duffey illegally denied to be filed and docketed by the Clerk of the Court. The panel ignored the facts, and this conflicts with the United States Supreme Court decision in Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 558 U.S. ___ (2009), (08-10495). “…the Seventh Circuit erred in disposing of Corcoran’s other claims without explanation of any sort.” The Panel denied my wife a complete record of the case, and she was afforded no procedural safeguards. (See Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981); Lewis v. State of New York, 547 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976).)
The Relief Sought in PWM in ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 75, 76, and prayer ¶¶ (2) and (4) was not addressed by this Panel, and the PWM must be reconsidered and granted. My wife clearly filed a valid Motion for Protective Order (Docket #96). Judge Duffey denied consideration of the motion by claiming it was blocked by a nonexistent order. Judge Duffey had no right to deny its filing because his excuse for denying it was absolutely bogus as the docket undeniably shows. If the PWM is denied, the decision will be that judges have the authority to secretly issue filing restrictions without notice or the opportunity to be heard…and they can do it retroactively. (Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986); Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995); and MANY other cases.) The Panel has no choice but to declare that the motion was and is valid and is pending, and everything that has happened since October 18, 2010 is void.
In addition, oral orders are not valid. Orders must be signed and issued under seal, and the so-called “Oral Order” violates 28 U.S.C. § 1691.
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).
Judge William S. Duffey has illegally allowed all of my wife’s personal financial information and medical information to be published in PACER for anyone to access. He has done the same with my personal information, and the IRS has contacted me to say that someone has tried to redirect my tax refunds to a different address…and it wasn’t me! The Relief Sought in PWM ¶¶95, 96, 97, and prayer ¶¶ (3) was not addressed by the Panel, and the PWM must be reconsidered and granted. Judge Duffey has made my wife’s financial and medical information available publicly. As there was a valid motion for protective order, this Panel is obliged to now order protection.
The Panel’s ORDER ignored the facts and conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 558 U.S. ___ (2009), (08-10495). The Panel’s opinion conflicts with privacy laws due to failure to address this issue.
Disclosure of my wife’s personal information causes an identifiable, significant harm. Judge Duffey has denied any and all requests for protection. Among other things, my wife’s social security number, bank account number, credit card numbers, and other such information is available for easy identity theft.
The Eleventh Circuit must order the files to be sealed pursuant to the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Deford, 120 F.R.D. at 653. (See Foltz v. State Farm, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 06/18/2003); SEC v Merrill Scott, No. 08-4029 (10th Cir. 03/23/2010).)
Deny Constitutional Rights
The Constitution is meaningless to corrupt judges. They simply violate Constitutional rights with no regard for the people they damage. All of the judges that I have encountered have violated my Constitutional rights. I have been raped of my rights to due process. I have been denied the right to call witnesses, to testify under oath, to cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, to file answers to motions filed by the favored party, to file lawsuits, to contact witnesses, and much more.
In my wife’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the bottom line is that Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge Ed Carnes, and Judge William H. Pryor absolutely denied a variety of Constitutional rights to her, especially the right to due process. Her right to the alleged protections of our legal system were stolen when Judge William S. Duffey and the Clerk of the Court caused her appeals to disappear.
Violate and Ignore the Rules of Civil Procedure
By violating and ignoring the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, judges commit obstruction of justice. They allow the favored party to break rules and get away with it. For example, in my cases, the opposing parties have not filed a single affidavit as to facts for the last three years. The Local Rules of Civil Procedure require that all alleged statements of fact in motions and other filings must be supported by affidavit. This has not been done by the opposing parties since 2008, but every motion that I file has an affidavit or a sworn verification. Other rules are ignored as well so the favored parties can get away with just about anything.
In my wife’s case, the rules are very clear about the right to file a notice of appeal, that receipt of a notice of appeal by the Clerk constitutes filing, that the Clerk has a ministerial duty to process the notices of appeal, that no judge has the right to interfere with an appeal, and that the appellate court judges have an obligation to immediately correct such an injustice. But all of these rules were violated to damage my wife and me.
Automatically Rule against Certain Classes of People
Judges automatically rule against certain classes of people. The concept of fair and impartial judges is a fairy tale. I have proven that people who represent themselves as plaintiffs in the federal courts in Atlanta always lose. We have a right to represent ourselves in court, but we automatically lose. Judges are simply attorneys in black dresses, and they seem to uniformly hate parties who aren’t spending a fortune with attorneys, so they screw them.
These judges hate me, so they ruled against my sweet wife.
Refuse to Disqualify Themselves
The Constitution and case law clearly provide that we are supposed to be entitled to a fair and impartial judge, but the corrupt judges simply ignore the law. They refuse to disqualify themselves so they can inflict damage on parties who aren’t favored. This has happened with Judge Evans, Judge Duffey, Judge Thrash, and every judge with the Eleventh Circuit.
In this case, these three judges at the Eleventh Circuit have committed many crimes against me, and they are each defendants in three of my legal actions. They are also people who I have made criminal charges to the Grand Jury. This is totally personal to them; they can’t allow my wife to prevail because it will hurt them. Needless to say, they had no business serving as judges in this matter.
Violate their Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct
Like the rules of civil procedure, a judge’s Oath of Office and Code of Judicial Conduct READ great. But the judges pay no attention to the Oath or Code. When they intentionally violate their Oath and the Code of Judicial Conduct, they are intentionally damaging a party.
Conspire with Fellow Judges and Judicial Employees
The corrupt judges commit conspiracy with their fellow judges and judicial employees. They often need help from other judges as well as law clerks, the employees in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, and others.
Don’t Publish the Improper Orders
The Eleventh Circuit has NEVER published one of the orders in my appeals. When they are violating the law, they have protection by not publishing the order. This keeps it from the eyes of attorneys and other judges who would identify the wrongdoing. Publishing would also make their erroneous decisions precedents for other cases. The whole legal system would be turned even more upside down if this were to happen.
Judges are Corrupt
Corruption is the abuse of power by a public official. As I see it, judicial corruption is dishonesty by a judge. Corruption does not have to be economic in character. A police officer who fabricates evidence against a person he believes to be guilty of paedophilia is not committing an economic crime; and he might do so because he believes the accused to be guilty, and does not want him to go unpunished. Economics is not necessarily involved as an element of the officer’s crime or as a motivation. When police do wrong they are often motivated by a misplaced sense of justice, rather than by financial reward. Again, a person in authority motivated by sadistic pleasure who abuses her power by meting out cruel and unjust treatment to those subject to her authority, is not engaging in an economic crime; and she is not motivated by economic considerations. Judges and many of those who occupy positions of authority are motivated by a desire to exercise power for its own sake, rather than by a desire for financial reward. That said, bribery is generally regarded as the most serious form of public corruption.
William M. Windsor
 |
 |
| Judge Ed Carnes | Judge Pryor |
William M. Windsor — 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. Bill Windsor
{jcomments on}