Demand Your Right to Present Your Government Corruption Charges to a Federal Grand Jury

Our best hope to get judicial corruption and government corruption addressed is with our local grand juries.

But if your efforts get illegally blocked with your county or state grand juries, realize that the federal government is OBLIGATED BY STATUTE to allow your charges to be presented to a federal grand jury.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s staff has a specific legal obligation.¬† They may violate this law, too, but I personally will take every available option to get these crooks in prison….

18 U.S.C. 3332 provides:

(a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. ¬† Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence.¬† Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney√Ę‚ā¨‚ĄĘs action or recommendation. [emphasis added.]

This means that it is the OBLIGATION of a U.S. Attorney or Assistant U.S. Attorney to present your charges to a federal grand jury if you so request. 

Here’s what I have done.

First, I have compiled proof of significant criminal violations by judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, federal judicial employees, U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates, employees of the U.S. Attorney’s office, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, Jr., employees of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, Fulton County Grand Jury Foreman Steve Broadbent, employees of the Fulton County Sheriff’s Department, and some judges and judicial employees in the Fulton County Superior Court.

Second, I asked employees of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to meet and consider the evidence, and they refused or ignored the requests.¬† I sent the letters by fax and obtained fax confirmation pages to prove delivery.¬†

After my initial letters, I sent letters expressing that the U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorneys were violating several criminal statutes in failing to act, including 18 U.S.C. 1603 (Obstruction of Justice), 18 U.S.C. 4 (Misprision of Felonies), and others.¬† I felt it was very important to put the U.S. Attorney’s Office on notice because this sets me up to try to eliminate their involvement with the grand jury.

Third, I asked the U.S. Attorney and other attorney employees of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to inform the Grand Jury of my charges and evidence, and the request was ignored.¬† I made several such requests, and the last one cited 18 U.S.C. 3332.¬† I sent the letters by fax, and I obtained confirmation pages.¬† I asked that a U.S. Attorney from a state in a different federal circuit handle the matter since I said my charges will include charges against the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta and her staff.¬† This is important because the U.S. Attorney can blow your charges out of the water with the grand jury.¬† A neutral U.S. Attorney is the best shot at the slight chance of justice.¬†¬† (Another circuit is important because every U.S. Attorney within the states covered by the local federal circuit will have to appear before the judges that I am seeking to get indicted.¬† The local U.S. Attorney’s Office will also be defending these same judges.)

Maybe you’ll get lucky and get to present your information to be passed to the grand jury.¬† If so, you want to have short, specific charges with clear pieces of evidence.

Fourth, Under 28 U.S.C.¬†1361, otherwise known as The Mandamus Act, the district court has original jurisdiction over a mandamus action “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.¬† Mandamus relief is only appropriate when: (1) the plaintiff has a clear right to the relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) “no other adequate remedy [is] available.” Id. Put another way, a writ of mandamus “is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear non-discretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984).

Since I have a clear right to have any criminal charges presented to a federal grand jury; since the U.S. Attorney has a clear duty to act; and since I have no other adequate remedy as there is no way to reach a federal grand jury except through the U.S. Attorney’s Office, mandamus is proper.

File a simple civil action asking the court to compel a U.S. Attorney to present the charges to the federal Grand Jury as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3332 or the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, or the many case law citations.  In my case, I have been banned from ever filing another lawsuit anywhere in America for the rest of my life, so I will need the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that order void before I can pursue legal action.  But, virtually every other American has this right.

FYI: Folks, I have been sick this week, so I haven’t written much, and I haven’t taken calls or played back voice mail.¬† It’s just a little flu or cold or some such thing, so I’ll be fine soon.

Previous Articles

Previous Grand Jury Article — February 23, 2011

Previous Grand Jury Article — April 23, 2011

Previous Grand Jury Article — May 3, 2011

Previous Grand Jury Article — August 25, 2011

Previous Grand Jury Article — September 4, 2011

Grand Juries Resource Guide

Federal Grand Juries

If It’s Not a Runaway, It’s Not a Real Grand Jury

Book: The Ambushed Grand Jury

On Grand Juries from the Corpus Juris Secundum

William M. Windsor 

I am not an attorney.  I cannot give legal advice.  Please make your own determinations or seek legal advice should you know an honest attorney.

This manual is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone seeking legal advice should consult a competent professional. Neither the author, editor, or publisher guarantee that using this information will result in success or protect the reader from harm. The reader must accept that risk, and thoroughly study the law before using any of this material. Readers must take full responsibility for the consequences of any actions taken based on the contents of this manual.

{jcomments on}


Why Judges Commit Crimes

This isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing; this is non-partisan. These people are all dishonest and have been for many years.

It is possible that there is bribery.  Judge Michael Ciavarella in Pennsylvania was just sentenced to 28 years in prison for accepting $1.5 million in bribes from the owner of a private prison.  Ciavarella and fellow Judge Michael Conahan sent kids to prison for cash.

It is clear that big law firms have a “special relationship” with the judges.¬† Whether there is money involved or not in Atlanta, I do not yet know.

Attorneys will not pursue dishonest judges because they cannot risk their careers.  Attorneys tell me that their career would be dead if they even handled a civil case against federal judges.

The news media is similarly afraid of the judges.¬† An investigative reporter with the Atlanta Journal & Constitution wanted to write the story of what I have uncovered, but she took it to her boss, and she was told she couldn’t.¬† The judges have tyrannical power, and the paper would not risk it.¬† Recently, investigative reporter Mark Winne with Channel 2 in Atlanta was in the lobby when I was trying to get to meet with the Grand Jury, and when he found out what I was doing, he disappeared.

We now have an entire branch of the federal government that “self-polices” — acting in any inept, corrupt manner they choose without fear of accountability, have lifetime appointment to the bench and freely abrogate basic legal standards to grant “winks and nods” to parties in favor with the court — evidence and law be damned.

These judges are protected by Congressional Judiciary Committees that arguably have a conflict of interest because all Judiciary Committee members are attorney and members of the same professional organization as the judges they are supposed to provide oversight over  the Bar Association. Members of the Judiciary Committees risk professional suicide by taking legislative action on judges.  When an election is lost, they would be back practicing law in front of judges who would be unhappy by legislation passed.

Judges commit crimes because they can.  They can break the law and get away with it.

Judges Do Not Have Immunity for Criminal Acts

Many people are confused and think judges have immunity.¬† Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.¬† (¬†O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).)¬†

Judges have no immunity for crimes committed by them during the terms of their office or prior thereto. United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976 (1974). (See also  Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128, 96 S. Ct. 984 (1976); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 33 L. Ed. 2d 583, 92 S. Ct. 2614 (1972); United States v. DiCarlo, 565 F.2d 802, 806 (1977); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, supra at 581, United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 03/22/1978); United States v. Anzelmo, 319 F. Supp. 1106, 1118-19 (E.D. La. 1970).

No federal official has ever been held exempt from prosecution for his commission of a federal crime. (United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1938); United States v. Gillock, 587 F.2d 284 (6th Cir. 11/01/1978).)

  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise under the RICO Act. ( U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).) [emphasis added.]

The United States Supreme Court acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge “Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through ‘Operation Greylord’, a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago.” (Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793 (U.S. 06/09/1997).

Turning the pages of history, the Supreme Court said in an 1882 decision, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, that:

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law as defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.

It is the only supreme power in our system of government and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.

In Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, Mr. Justice Douglas said in his dissenting opinion, Ibid. at 140: “If they [federal judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” Mr. Justice Black in his dissent said, Ibid. at 141, that “* * * judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes * * *.”

In United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, a Senator was charged with a √ā¬ß 201 violation. The trial court held that the Speech or Debate Clause precluded criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed and found no constitutional violation for online casino.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, was concerned with the validity of a subpoena requiring the assistant of a Senator to appear as a witness before a federal grand jury. The Senator intervened and asserted a violation of his constitutional privileges. With reference to the Freedom from Arrest Clause, the Court said, 408 U.S. at 615:

It is, therefore, sufficiently plain that the constitutional freedom from arrest does not exempt Members of Congress from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws, even though imprisonment may prevent or interfere with the performance of their duties as Members. * * * Indeed, implicit in the narrow scope of the privilege of freedom from arrest is, as Jefferson noted, the judgment that legislators ought not to stand above the law they create but ought generally to be bound by it as are ordinary persons.

Finally, we have O’Shea v. Littleton, decided January 15, 1974. The Court said: √Ę‚ā¨Ňď√Ę‚ā¨¬¶we have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. Cf. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880). On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach “so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress. . . .” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627 (1972).

“We conclude that whatever immunities or privileges the Constitution confers for the purpose of assuring the independence of the co-equal branches of government they do not exempt the member of those branches “from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws.” Criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public officials. Punishment for that conduct will not interfere with the legitimate operations of a branch of government. Historically, the impeachment process has proven to be cumbersome and fraught with political overtones. We believe that the independence of the judiciary is better served when criminal charges against its members are tried in a court rather than in Congress. With a court trial, a judge assured of the protections given to all those charged with criminal conduct. The issues are heard in a calm and reasoned manner and are subject to the rules of evidence, the presumption of innocence, and other safeguards.” (United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 at 519-520.)

On the basis of the text of the Constitution, its background, its contemporaneous construction, and the pragmatic consequences of its provisions on impeachment, we are convinced that a federal judge is subject to indictment and trial before impeachment and that the district court had jurisdiction to try defendant Kerner.” (United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 02/19/1974).)

William M. Windsor

{jcomments on}

How to Fight Judicial Corruption


When I discovered that I was being victimized by judicial corruption, I decided to fight.

I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice.

The following article indicates the things that I have done in fighting judicial corruption…

Continue reading How to Fight Judicial Corruption

Ideas for State Legislation to deal with Judicial and Government Dishonesty and Corruption


America, we have a lot of problems.

Our best hope of fixing some of our problems now is at the state level.  So, we are drafting proposed state legislation to deal with dishonesty and corruption with judges and other government officials.

Please review the points that have been submitted thus far, and add your comments to the article below….

Continue reading Ideas for State Legislation to deal with Judicial and Government Dishonesty and Corruption

We live in Lawless America

Lawless America

We live in Lawless America.

You’re saying to yourself, this is stupid.¬† We have lots of laws.¬† Yes, we do…but we live in Lawless America.

Continue reading We live in Lawless America

Screwed, Glued, & Tattooed … INjustice in America

Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed√Ę‚ā¨¬¶INjustice in America

I’ve been screwed, glued, and tattooed in federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia and in courts in Georgia, Montana, Idaho, California, Kansas, Florida, and Texas.¬†

This website includes my story in hopes that someone somewhere will take action to stop this. 

There is nothing funny at all about this, but this was the only photo I could find that looked like a screwed, glued, tattooed person.

Continue reading Screwed, Glued, & Tattooed … INjustice in America