Windsor Petition for Rehearing En Banc

The following is the Windsor Petition for Rehearing En Banc. It was copied and pasted here from the Federal Court document. This Petition for Rehearing En Banc shows how judges ignore the law to screw a self-represented litigant (pro se). (It may be easier to read the Petition from the pdf scanned by the Eleventh Circuit.

Judges nationwide HATE Bill Windsor because he is committed to exposing their evildoings. See https://AANL.net for his latest plan to save America from judicial corruption and denial of our Constitutional rights. He has published thousands of articles on LawlessAmerica.com since 2008. He is not a lawyer, and he cannot give legal advice, but he can and does help his friends with his experience.

Please forgive the spacing and numbering because Word and WordPress just don’t always cooperate. Photos and links have been added that are not in the legal Petition.

APPEAL NO. 22-12038 and 22-12411

_______________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________________________________________

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

versus

James N. Hatten, et al,

Defendants

________________________________________________________

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-CV-01923-TWT

Judge Thomas Woodrow Thrash

thrash-thomas

_________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

bill windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Avenue PMB 1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

Phone: 352-###-####, Email: windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

PRO SE FOR PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT, WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING

and en banc determination

William M. Windsor (“WINDSOR”) hereby requests that the Court relieve WINDSOR from the Judgment and OPINION dated 1/25/2024 in USCA11 Case No. 22-12038 and USCA11 Case No. 22-12411, pursuant to Rules 35 and 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”).

WINDSOR references and incorporates herein the entire dockets and their contents in 1-11-01923-TWT (”01923”) [APPENDIX 128], USCA11 Case 22-12038 (“22-12038”) [APPENDIX 129, and USCA11 Case 22-12411 (“22-12411”) [APPENDIX 130.]

FIRST PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT OVERLOOKED OR MISAPPREHENDED

BY THE SECOND PANEL

The decisions of the “SECOND PANEL” of the Eleventh Circuit (Judges Robin Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Branch, and Britt Grant) conflict with decisions of every U.S. Court of Appeals, recent decisions in this case [APPENDIX 131 and APPENDIX 132], and Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir. 1993); Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1079 (11th Cir. 1986); Riccard v. Prudential,307 F.3d 1277, 1295 n.15 (11th Cir. 2002); Klay v. United, 376 F.3d 1092, 1099-1102 (11th Cir. 2004); Dinardo v. Palm Beach Judge, 199 Fed.Appx. 731 (11th Cir. 07/18/2006). Consideration by the full Court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions.

Judge Britt Grant

The one Appealed Order in 22-12411 is APPENDIX 135. It purports to place restrictions on state courts, so the Appeal must be granted.
The four appealed orders in 22-12038 are APPENDIX 137, APPENDIX 4, APPENDIX 138, and APPENDIX 135. Each purports to place restrictions on state courts, so the Appeals must be granted.
Article Three of the U.S. Constitution empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law. Article 3 grants no powers over state courts; a federal order for filing restrictions cannot apply to states.
WINDSOR has researched “filing restrictions” referencing the three key federal precedents. The decisions in all eleven Circuits appear to be unanimous in providing that federal courts are unable to approve federal courts issuing orders that apply to state courts.
BUT, there is one and only one circuit that has allowed a federal judge to approve federal courts issuing orders that apply to state courts. It’s the 11TH CIRCUIT, but only in appeals involving WINDSOR.
WINDSOR could find NO OTHER CASE to support the actions of JUDGE Thomas W. THRASH. There has never been another appellate decision that disagrees with Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 191-92 (5th Cir. 2008); Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1344 (10th Cir. 2006); and Martin-Trigona v. Lavien, 737 F.2d 1254, 1263 (2d Cir. 1984). See also Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107 (11th Cir. 05/20/1985). APPENDIX 21 is a Memorandum of Law on 137 applicable federal cases as of 08/08/2020.

SECOND PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

The SECOND PANEL violated the September 7, 2022 Order of this Court [APPENDIX 131] and ignored the Law of the Case Doctrine.
The SECOND PANEL has outrageously dismissed WINDSOR’s appeals [APPENDIX 133] and [APPENDIX 134] falsely claiming he abandoned them.
WINDSOR has been pursuing the corrupt acts of JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Eleventh Circuit, for 15 years. He has never abandoned anything.
From the first sentence in the Opinions, the SECOND PANEL has shown they have a complete bias against WINDSOR.
The STATEMENTS REGARDING APPEAL [APPENDIX 139] and [APPENDIX 140] were required to establish that the Appeals were not frivolous, and it was determined by Eleventh Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill A. Pryor, and Andrew L. Brasher (“FIRST PANEL”) on 9/7/2022 that the appeals were not frivolous. [APPENDIX 133] and [APPENDIX 134]. They ruled:

“With respect to both the appeal statement associated with appeal no. 22-12038 and the appeal statement associated with appeal no. 22-12411, the Court finds that Appellant has raised a non-frivolous issue, specifically whether a pre-filing injunction may be extended to filings in state court. See, e.g., Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F .3d 181, 192 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, these appeals survive the frivolity screening required by this Court’s December 21, 2011 order.” [emphasis added.] [22-12038-Docket-13-ORDER-Not-Frivolous-Stay-Consolidated-2022-09-07.] [APPENDIX 131.]

Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F .3d 181, 192 (5th Cir. 2008) was cited by the FIRST PANEL. It says:

“The district court abused its discretion in extending the pre-filing injunction to filings in state courts, state agencies, and this Court.

“Baum argues that even if the injunction is proper for federal courts, ‘[a]buse of state judicial process is not per se a threat to the jurisdiction of Article III courts and does not per se implicate other federal interests.’ Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d at 1263.

“In Martin-Trigona, the Second Circuit concluded that the district court ‘erred in its blanket extension of the [pre-filing] injunction to state courts….’ [737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984).]

“Blue Moon does not cite to any authority that upholds a federal court’s pre-filing injunction against state court and state agency filings.

“The Tenth Circuit held that (2) a district court’s pre-filing injunction may not extend to filings in any federal appellate court, and (3) a district court’s pre-filing injunction may not extend to filings in any state court. Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1344 (10th Cir.2006).”

Yet in the first sentence of the OPINIONS, the SECOND PANEL stated: “This appeal is the latest in a line of frivolous litigation pursued by William Windsor.” There is no evidence of this. This violates Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) Rule 602. This DIRECTLY contradicts the 9/7/2022 Order of the Eleventh Circuit [APPENDIX 131.]
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that WINDSOR has ever filed anything in any court anywhere that was frivolous. This SECOND PANEL cannot show evidence to the contrary.
The Eleventh Circuit decided that issue in these cases on 9/7/2022. The “law of the case doctrine” provides that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the court on appeal in any subsequent retrial or appeal involving the same case and substantially the same facts. The appellate court’s holdings on the questions presented to it on review become the “law of the case.” The purpose of the doctrine is to promote finality and judicial economy by minimizing unnecessary relitigation of legal issues once they have been resolved by the appellate court. Instead, the SECOND PANEL thumbed its nose at judicial economy and created unnecessary litigation.
WINDSOR will file Judicial Complaints against Robin Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Branch, and Britt Grant.

THIRD PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

The Second Panel did not issue an Opinion on one of the Appealed Orders.
On Page 6 of [APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134] in the next to last paragraph of the “Background” section, each states: “… his appeals were allowed to proceed as to the district court’s May 21, 2022, and June 30, 2022, orders.”
There is no May 21, 2022 Order as proven by the dockets. [APPENDIX 128, APPENDIX 129, APPENDIX 130.] Therefore, one of the orders appealed has not been addressed, and this PETITION must be granted.

FOURTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

The SECOND PANEL’s Opinions cause significant confusion as to what in the world they are pretending to say.
On January 25, 2024, an OPINION was docketed in USCA11 Case 22-12038 (“22-12038”) – DOCKET 50 [APPENDIX 133] and USCA11 Case 22-12411 (“22-12411”) [APPENDIX 134] by this SECOND PANEL
A JUDGMENT was also docketed in both cases as shown on the Dockets. [APPENDIX 129 and APPENDIX 130.]
The File Stamp at the top of each page docketed in 22-12038 on APPENDIX 129 says “USCA11 Case 22-12038.”
The File Stamp at the top of each page docketed in 22-12411 on APPENDIX 130 says “USCA11 Case 22-12038.”
The Case Numbers on both APPENDIX 132 and APPENDIX 133 show BOTH Case Numbers on Page 2 of USCA11 Document 51-1.

FIFTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

Only two cases were cited by the SECOND PANEL in the OPINIONS. Neither is applicable to the instant case.
One of the two cases was cited by the Appellees in the BRIEF OF APPELLEE. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 – DOCKET 39.] [APPENDIX 141] Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) appears on PP.6–7 of the OPINION [APPENDIX 133] and on P.12 of the BRIEF OF APPELLEE [APPENDIX 141]. The Sapuppo Order [APPENDIX 142] briefly references Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008) [APPENDIX 143,P.3.]
None of WINDSOR’s authority was cited by the SECOND PANEL. WINDSOR cited 58 cases, eight statutes, and other authorities in his NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 17 and APPENDIX 25]; 88 cases, 13 statutes, and nine other authorities in his APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146]; 36 cases, three statutes, and three other authorities in his APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF [APPENDIX 144.]
Timson v. Sampson was cited by the SECOND PANEL [OPINION, PP.7-8] APPENDIX 143] as purported authority that WINDSOR abandoned his claims:

“Although “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” we

nonetheless deem “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant . . . abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.” Id.”

But the SECOND PANEL misrepresented the facts and what Timson actually provides that is relevant to the instant case.
Timson v. Sampson [APPENDIX 143] actually says:

“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, Lorisme v. I.N.S., 129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1997), issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2002).

Moreover, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief. Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003). Timson, thus, abandoned this issue.” [emphasis added.]

Lovett v. Ray, says: “Because he raises that argument for the first time in his reply brief, it is not properly before us.” [emphasis added.] [APPENDIX 145.]
WINDSOR raised this issue from Day 1. In WINDSOR’s 420-page APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF [APPENDIX 144], he begins by saying “This Court must base its analysis on the 2011 and 2018 orders, and he explains why. The SECOND PANEL ignored all of this.
WINDSOR PLAINLY AND PROMINENTLY RAISED ISSUES IN HIS REPLY BRIEF in all caps, bold type, and underlined:

THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ORDERS EXHIBIT-1 1-026 AND EXHIBIT-11-048 (“APPEALED ORDERS” THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF MUST BE DISREGARDED AS TO ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO BE CLAIMS OF FACT. But, Factual Basis was raised on P.8 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 25]. This violates FRE Rule 602.

AS THE BRIEF IS UNSWORN, AND THERE IS NO FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR ANY CLAIMS OF FACT. Factual Basis was raised on P.8 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 25]. This violates FRE Rule 602.
EXHIBITS TO THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF MUST BE DISREGARDED AS THEY ARE UNAUTHENTICATED. Factual Basis was raised on P.8 of the NOTICE OF APPEAL [APPENDIX 25]. This violates FRE Rule 901.
THIS COURT INCORRECTLY HELD THAT IT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER WINDSOR’S CHALLENGES TO DISTRICT COURT’S 2011 AND 2018 ORDERS. See STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL PP.7-8; APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.
APPELLEE’S BRIEF ISSUE #1: THIS COURT DOES NOT LACK JURISDICTION OVER WINDSOR’S APPEAL OF THE 2022 ORDERS AS THE APPELLEES HAVE FALSELY CLAIMED.
APPELLEE’S BRIEF ISSUE #2: THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER WINDSOR’S APPEAL OF THE 2022 ORDERS. See APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.
APPELLEE’S BRIEF ISSUE #3: WINDSOR DID NOT ABANDON A CHALLENGE TO THE 2022 ORDERS BY FAILING TO IDENTIFY ANY LEGAL ERRORS SPECIFIC TO THOSE ORDERS AS THE APPELLEES HAVE FALSELY STATED. See APPENDIX 141, PP.1-12.

WINDSOR identified all the legal errors that applied to the 2022 orders.
The terms are very clear “…filing any complaint or initiating any proceeding, including any new lawsuit or administrative proceeding [APPELLANT’S BRIEF] [APPENDIX 146-P.13-¶99.]
The APPEALED ORDERS have nothing to do with filing a complaint, filing a new lawsuit, or filing an administrative proceeding. A Texas application for guardianship in an existing probate court matter is not the filing of a lawsuit and is not an administrative proceeding. And it is a matter over which JUDGE THRASH has no jurisdiction.
Contrary to the outlandish claim of the APPELLEES, this clearly explains why the 2022 Orders are void. WINDSOR explained that the so-called permanent injunctions do not restrict a Texas application for guardianship in an existing probate court matter as it is not the filing of a lawsuit and is not an administrative proceeding.
See APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xxvii, P.l,¶¶25-26. See P.3,¶38: Neither the motion to deny removal nor jurisdiction were ever addressed by JUDGE THRASH in 01923.
WINDSOR has never filed anything frivolous, and he has not abused the federal judicial system.
The U.S. Attorney continues to violate the Constitution and the law by claiming a federal judge has jurisdiction over state court matters.

SIXTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDERS ARE VOID AND INVALID.

See STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL P.7; APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.

SEVENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

WINDSOR AND HIS ACQUAINTANCES WERE DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.

See STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL P.9; APPELLANT’S BRIEF [APPENDIX 146],P.xvi.

EIGHTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF LAW

AND FACT

WINDSOR ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, MORE THAN ADEQUATELY BRIEFED HIS CLAIM. HE PLAINLY AND PROMINENTLY RAISED IT BY DEVOTING DISCRETE SECTIONS OF HIS ARGUMENT.

This SECOND PANEL either didn’t review the filings or corruptly invented an issue that does not exist. [OPINION – APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134, P.6, II. Discussion, ¶1.]
The FRAP requires that an APPELLANT’S BRIEF be filed, and on 6/7/2023, WINDSOR filed 65 pages verified under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 USC 1746. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 APPENDIX 146], P.65.] It identifies and attaches a copy of the Order Appealed. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34] [APPENDIX 146, P.45,¶¶98,100.] It is titled “APPEAL NO. 22-12038-J AND 22-12411-J.”
The APPELLANT’S BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34, P.xv] [APPENDIX 146] has a major heading “ARGUMENT” and five arguments PLAINLY AND PROMINENTLY identified:

A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF STATE COURTS, SO ALL OF THE APPEALS MUST BE GRANTED. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.]
ALL ORDERS OF JUDGE THRASH MUST BE DECLARED VOID BECAUSE FEDERAL COURT ORDERS ARE VOID WHEN JURISDICTION IS NEVER DETERMINED. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], P.xv.]
JUDGE THRASH’S FEDERAL COURT ORDERS PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF STATE COURTS ARE VOID ORDERS. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], PP.xv-xvi.]
IN GEORGIA, A PARTY APPLYING FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES OF THE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF A SPOUSE. SO DENIAL OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS TO WINDSOR WAS UNLAWFUL. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146], P.xvi.]
Windsor’s constitutional due process rights have been violated, so the appeals must be granted. [USCA11 Case 22-12038 DOCKET 34 [APPENDIX 146, P.xvi.]

WINDSOR has filed detailed information with this Court in the Statement of Appeal, Notice of Appeal, Responses to Questions from the Clerk, Appellant’s Brief, and Appellant’s Reply Brief. Virtually everything he has filed has been sworn under penalty of perjury.
As to the June 30, 2022 Order of Judge Thomas W. Thrash [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17] is the “NOTICE OF APPEAL.” FRAP Rule 3 requires that such a Notice must be filed to initiate an appeal, and WINDSOR filed it on 7/18/2022. It identifies and attaches a copy of the Order Appealed. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278, P.1.] [APPENDIX 17.] It lists the Constitutional rights violated. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.1-2.]
It raised the following:
1. THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER IS VOID AND INVALID. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.4-5.]
2. WINDSOR AND HIS ACQUAINTANCES WERE DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.6-8.]
3. THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ORDER. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], P.8.]
4. THE ORDER IS VAGUE, AND IT IS TOO BROAD. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.8-10.]
5. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO ISSUE ORDERS ON STATE COURT MATTERS. [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.10-12.]
6. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO ISSUE ORDERS DENYING LEGAL RIGHTS TO ACQUAINTANCES OF WINDSOR [1-11-CV-01923-TWT DOCKET 278 [APPENDIX 17], PP.12-13.]
The 7/26/2022 “STATEMENT REGARDING APPEAL” [APPENDIX 147] was required to establish that the Appeal was not frivolous, and it was so determined. It identified and attached a copy of the Order Appealed. [APPENDIX 147, P.13.] APPENDIX 147 provided a concise summary of the issues.
It raised the following:

JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH’S ORDER IS VOID AND INVALID. [APPENDIX 147, P.7,¶¶4-5.]
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER STATE COURTS. [APPENDIX 147, PP.7-8,¶¶ 6-7.]
WINDSOR WAS DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. [APPENDIX 147, P.8,¶¶8-10.]
THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ORDER. [APPENDIX 147, P.8,¶¶11-12.]
THIS COURT MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS OR INJUNCTIONS THAT RESTRICT STATE COURTS. [APPENDIX 147, P.9,¶¶13-14.]
JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH HAS NO RIGHT TO DENY ACQUAINTANCES OF WINDSOR FROM PURSUING THEIR LEGAL MATTERS. [APPENDIX 147, P.9,¶¶15-16.]
JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH HAS EXTREME BIAS AGAINST WINDSOR. HE WILL DO ANYTHING TO DAMAGE WINDSOR. [APPENDIX 147, P.10,¶17.]

NINTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

The Judgment is VOID.
A court must have jurisdiction to enter a valid, enforceable judgment on a claim. Where jurisdiction is lacking, litigants may retroactively challenge the validity of a judgment. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction.]
WINDSOR has consistently denied jurisdiction for 12+ Years. [APPENDIX 128.]
The requirement that a court have subject-matter jurisdiction means that the court can only assume power over a claim that it is authorized to hear under the laws of the jurisdiction. All Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. They only have the power to hear cases that arise under federal law, The instant case was brought in state court for violation of Georgia statutes and has no grant of subject matter jurisdiction. [APPENDIX 19.] See Const. Art. III, Sec. 2.
A threshold concern for all federal courts is the presence, or absence, of Constitutional standing. The standing requirement does not exist in the instant case. Subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist in the absence of constitutional standing. This restriction prevents courts—whose members are not elected and are therefore not politically accountable—from influencing the law in a legislative capacity. In this sense, the standing doctrine and subject-matter jurisdiction facilitate the separation of powers.
Under federal question jurisdiction, a litigant—regardless of the value of the claim—may bring a claim in federal court if it arises under federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. See 28 USC 1331. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal element appears on the face of a well-plead complaint, and it does not
The jurisdictional division between state and federal tribunals is an essential component of American federalism. Federalism is the Constitutional division of power between state governments and the federal government of the United States.
Article Three of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law. There is no federal law regarding guardianship of state citizens.
Federal case law establishes that a federal judge has no jurisdiction over state courts, and a federal order for filing restrictions cannot apply to state courts. There are many 11TH CIRCUIT precedents. See Paragraph 3 above.

TENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

Applying the Judgment prospectively is no longer equitable.
In addition to the many other issues, WINDSOR is in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and has no access to funds required by the purported Injunction.
The JUDGMENT closes the courthouse doors to WINDSOR, which is a significant violation of Constitutional rights.

ELEVENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

Judge Elizabeth Branch Judge Robin Rosenbaum Judge Britt Grant

The SECOND PANEL appears to WINDSOR to be totally corrupt.
The U.S. Constitution does not give federal judges jurisdiction over state courts. This SECOND PANEL has pretended this isn’t one of the most-notable Constitutional provisions. Unless they didn’t bother to read the file, the FIRST PANEL did this work for them and ordered as they did in APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134.
Each justice or judge of the United Statesis required to take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his or her office:

“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” [28 USC 453.]

U.S. Constitution

JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH and judges with the Eleventh Circuit have chosen to ignore the Constitution for 15 years when it comes to WINDSOR, and no one else. EVERY Federal Circuit has established precedents on this specific issue, including the Eleventh Circuit. JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH and judges with the Eleventh Circuit have all violated their Oath of Office.

TWELFTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

When there is no legal basis for jurisdiction or an Injunction, the fact that a judge issues void orders does not make them lawful.
The Appellate Courts have the power to correct such overwhelming violations of the Constitution and the law at any time.
The SECOND PANEL is wrong in ignoring the VOID Injunctions that are the basis for the APPEALED ORDERS.

THIRTEENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

Judge Thomas W. Thrash’s basis for denying WINDSOR’s APPEALS is to falsely and maliciously claim that WINDSOR did something in the past, so he no longer has his Constitutional right to file anything in any legal matter.

FOURTEENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

The SECOND PANEL falsely claimed on P.4. of the OPINIONS [APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134] that the case was removed from state court.
JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH never ruled on jurisdiction, and he never issued an order in response to WINDSOR’s reply and objection [APPENDIX 19 and APPENDIX 128.]

Wanda Dutschmann

FIFTEENTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT:

MOM IS DEAD

Wanda Dutschmann is dead. She was known as MOM, and WINDSOR is writing a book titled “KILLING MOM.”

Killing Mom

WINDSOR believes JUDGE THOMAS W. THRASH and the SECOND PANEL contributed to her death by denying WINDSOR the opportunity to save her and her Estate through Guardianship in Texas. This is one of the APPEALED ORDERS [01923 – Docket ] [APPENDIX 135].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, WINDSOR requests that this PETITION is granted; relieve WINDSOR from the Judgments and OPINIONS dated 1/25/2024; grant WINDSOR’s APPEALS; and grant such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

Bill Windsor verifies

VERIFICATION OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

I, William M. Windsor, swear that I am authorized to make this verification and that the facts alleged in the foregoing PETITION are 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.

In accordance with 28 USC 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

This 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this pleading has been prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font, one of the font and point selections required by the Rules. There are 3891 words.

This 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

WindsorInSouthDakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing to each Defendant by Federal Express to:

RYAN K. BUCHANAN – GABRIEL A. MENDEL

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY — ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

600 United States Courthouse

75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Telephone: (404) 581-6000 — Facsimile: (404) 581-6181

Email: gabriel.mendel@usdoj.gov

This 7th day of February, 2024,

_______________________________
William M. Windsor

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

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.

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

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/

#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

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.

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.

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.

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 Schreck. Marcie 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.

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.

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.

Bill Windsor

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinmontana@yahoo.com

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

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

#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

My Special Thanksgiving 2014 Revisited by Bill Windsor and Lawless America

Happiest of Thanksgivings to You and Yours from Bill Windsor and Lawless America.

I’ll be all alone this Thanksgiving. I’ll search DoorDash in search of turkey or Chinese about noon, but it will be a quiet day. I used to have a family and enjoyed many wonderful Thanksgivings with my former son, daughter, and my very special granddaughters, but fighting corruption took that away from me.

But enough of sad, please allow me to tell you about my Special Thanksgiving…

On October 28, 2014, I was in the 40th Judicial District Court in Waxahachie Texas for a hearing in civil case #88611 (William M. Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid, et al). I was surprised to see Ellis County District Attorney Patrick Wilson and Ellis County Texas Sheriff Johnny Brown in the audience for the hearing as well as a small army of Ellis County Sheriff’s deputies. The hearing lasted from 1:30 pm to a little after 5:00 pm. It was the last hearing of the day, and it had nothing to do with the DA or the Sheriff.

I was detained on October 28, 2014 at approximately 5:30 pm by the Ellis County Sheriff’s Department as I left the courtroom. I was informed that there was a warrant from Montana.

I was taken to the Ellis County Jail. I was not given any paperwork or explanation as to why I was there. My personal property was taken from me. I had never been in jail, never charged with a crime, not even a traffic ticket or parking ticket in 15 years (now 23 years).

I was told that I had been granted a $100,000 bond and was given the opportunity to post bond for “violations of a protective order.” No details were given.

I am EXTREMELY claustrophobic, and the first two days were terrifying in that regard. I seriously questioned whether I could make it. I take medication nightly for claustrophobia, but I had no medicine with me, and speaking to an Ellis County Texas Jail staff member is like talking to a stump.

At 2:00 am on October 29, 2014, I was given a telephone call by Officer Jerri Smith. It was too late to reach anyone, and the telephones at the Ellis County Texas jail do not allow a message to be left on voice mail. I knew only two phone numbers – my former son and a woman I used to live with (who claims to be my ex-wife). I called them at least a dozen times each over the next three days. Neither of them ever accepted my calls, and they never did anything to help me. So much for so-called “family.” The feeling of being completely alone is a feeling that I hope I never experience again.

While I was told that my bond was set at $100,000, when I got bail bond companies to provide the bond, the Ellis County Jail refused to accept it.

I was then moved from the Booking Area to “O” Tank in the Ellis County Jail at about 4:00 pm on October 30, 2014. While in Booking, I was exposed to staph and MRSA as well as one extremely violent crazy man. I was really apprehensive about moving into “population.”

“O” Tank is a 24-man cell of approximately 1,500 square feet; 12 double bunks, three 8-seat iron picnic-style tables, three toilets, three sinks, two showers, cement block walls, cement floor, steel ceiling, bulletproof glass windows to the guard area, not bars. I immediately met Thomas Joe Edward Lee aka T.J. and several other young men, and I was relieved and felt comfortable. It was not scary as I anticipated. I never met anyone older than me, and 95% of the men there could have been my children or grandchildren. I’d estimate the average age to be 28. Other new friends made the first day in “O” Tank at the Ellis County Jail included Marquavius Woods (the only person other than me who I met out of hundreds who did not have tattoos); Jonathan Rima (a nice young man on crutches); Bryan (a tall guy who traded his semi-lumpy mattress for my giant lumps mattress); Michael McGowan (a handicapped black man who had been unable to obtain any help from his court-appointed attorney); Ignacio Galvan aka Nacho (nicknamed me Montana and “hazed” me the first night by saying the newest guy had to get up and turn out the lights – and there is no switch and the lights are always on); Zach (a really nice trustee with a hearing loss similar to mine); and Robert Davidson aka Jake or The Vape Master (a young guy who fell behind on court payments and got his probation revoked as a result).

I found that older men command almost universal respect in jail/prison. In addition to “Montana,” I was nicknamed Old School or School, for short. This is a common prison term for anyone seen as quite a bit older than you. That meant I was “School” to everyone. I later learned that “Pops” and “PawPaw” are also common. It seems that most people in jail must have called their grandfathers “PawPaw,” because I was called PawPaw a lot. As miserable as the experience was, I really did meet wonderful people. I cannot imagine what it would have been like without such kind people who immediately had my back, my front, and my sides. I was taken care of the whole time I was there as if I was actually the PawPaw to these guys. I was especially relieved to see how open the tank was as that really lessened the claustrophobia. My claustrophobia is so bad that I can’t even watch a movie where someone is in a small, restricted space.

My first jail meal other than bologna sandwiches served in a paper sack (“Johnny Sack”) in Booking was something that faintly resembled hamburger meat, two slices of bread, broccoli stems, two cookies, and a would-be Kool-Aid. I scarfed it down. I was so upset for the three days in Booking that I hadn’t eaten.

It may be hard for those who have never experienced this, but I made really good friends in jail with men and boys with whom I seemingly had very little in common. I found most of my fellow inmates to be extremely kind, very honest, and thankful for the smallest of gestures.

Most of my fellow inmates had little or absolutely NO money on their books. They couldn’t even buy a cracker.

Some men are lucky enough to have money on their books, so they can buy all kinds of things from the Commissary Lady. It saddened me to see the guys with no money. It had to be really hard on them to see what other guys were enjoying. I had money. I ended up giving away half of what I bought.

This is an actual photo of a Jail Spread meal. It tastes better than it looks. 🙂

The hottest Commissary item is called “soups” by the inmates. They are actually Ramen Noodle packages. They come in an array of flavors (usually very spicy), and soups are the #1 commodity behind bars. Sold by the Commissary Lady for 99 cents, a soup is an inexpensive meal for men who never got filled from the jail-sized servings at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Hot water is used to cook the soups. And the many jailhouse chefs have concocted a wide variety of recipes for their soups. They use items saved from dinner or purchased from the Commissary. The fancier, multiple inmate meals are called “spreads.”

This is a fairly typical recipe for a Jail Spread — but much more spicy in Texas.

I’m not a cook, so when I enjoyed a soup, someone else did the cooking. I enjoyed a basic soup with beans, chili or tuna added. I enjoyed soup-based burritos, and best of all I enjoyed soup pizza. The pizza makers would get the spread participants to save their hot dogs at dinner and they cut them up as makeshift pepperonis. There is no end to the ultra-spicy commissary items, so the pizza could include anything from jalapeno Cheetos or spicy chili Fritos to real jalapenos, fire-alarm chili, spicy pickles, and more.

The cooking consists of hot water in a plastic bag, salvaged from some Commissary item or rescued before it hit a trash pile. The goop is mixed with hot water in the plastic bag, then covered with cardboard from the back of a legal pad and bath towels – all to keep the heat in.

Served with a side order of saltine crackers (99 cents for a full sleeve), these soups and spreads are surprisingly good. Claxton made a tuna spread for us in the Ellis County Texas Jail that remains my absolute favorite! It is amazing what you can convince yourself is good when you have little or nothing.

As Thanksgiving 2014 drew nearer, I learned that the Thanksgiving meal in the Ellis County Texas Jail is not very big or very good. I thought it would be great to do something for my fellow convicts, so I arranged for someone on the outside to put $50 on the books of four of my fellow prisoners. We then ordered $200 worth of the Commissary Lady’s finest spicy foods, soups, crackers, and the like so we could put together a huge Thanksgiving Spread.

I swear it looks a lot better to you in jail when you don’t have as much as you’d like to eat!

I wanted to keep my involvement a secret, but one or more of my helpers couldn’t help but blab, and everyone found out that I was responsible for the extra meal that we all enjoyed on Thanksgiving Day 2014.

You would have thought I had given them each a million dollars. The men were SO appreciative. Most of them had probably never experienced a random act of kindness.

We laughed and talked and ate, and a good time was had by all. 24 boys and men, all stuck in a place that none of us wanted to be. Most were guilty of drinking too much, using drugs, or being poor. All were victims of broken systems.

It may seem strange that my favorite Thanksgiving of all time will be Thanksgiving 2014 with 23 fellow prisoners, but I cannot imagine anything could ever top it. I am thankful for every boy and man I met in jail, thankful for their friendship, thankful for what I learned from them, and thankful that I can now crusade against the many wrongs of our broken penal system.

If you have a friend or relative in jail, I encourage you to put some money on their books. It will mean the world to them! It is better to give than to receive. Happy Thanksgiving!

I know that some of the guys are out and will read this article, so I cannot fail to mention my other friends from the Ellis County Jail in Waxahachie, Texas. These friends include Carlos Amador aka Paradise, Zachary Anderson, Cody Barnes, James Boyette aka The Boxer, David Bradshaw, Steven Calder aka The Enforcer, Lejonathan Cox, Greg Deloach, Cristoval Diaz, Brian Eaton, Michael Finch, Julian Fira, Donald Ford, Francisco Garcia, Justin Garcia aka Houston, Arcadio Garza, Michael Gonzales, Lonnie Hall, Michael Harvey, Robert Holland, Chris Horn, Robert Jack, Aaron Jones aka AJ or Lover Boy, Zackery Jones aka Locker, Greg Mason, Billy Mizer, Faustino Montemayor aka Claxton, James Myers aka Cellie, Heath Neitzel, Nicholas Parker, Eugenio Pena aka The Barber, Lonny Ramirez, Matthew Rauen, Bobby Rhodes aka Tank Boss, Benton Skelton, Louis Stocker aka Organized, Amber Vanderzwart, Gustavo Villanueva, Hector Villanueva. This does not include those who have been released or sent to The Big House, including Jacob Aparicio, Justin Johnston, John Florence, Jamie Ellis, Jordan Brittain, De’Juan Wilson, Aaron Drake, Terrance Marion, Drake Hernandez, Lawrence Murley, Scotty Stewart.

I will be announcing a special filming in Amarillo, Texas. I am asking every member of the Amarillo Police Department to be interviewed. I will have a 50,000-volt Axon Taser 26, and I will invite each policeperson to be shot with it. I’m thinking of offering a $50 million reward to anyone who can absorb 1,500,000 volts of electricity and still be alive. So far, Hunter Tyler Schreck is the only person in the world to have endured such torture much less live to tell about it.

Image copyright Friends of Bill Windsor

If you want to reach Bill Windsor, his email is windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com.

For the Lawless America videos, see www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica. Bill Windsor’s Facebook page is www.facebook.com/billwindsor1 Bill Windsor’s Twitter account is www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica. And click here for the Lawless America Facebook page that magically reappeared.

#LawlessAmerica
#HunterTylerSchreck
#Corruption
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#AmarilloPoliceDepartment
#EllisCountyJail
#Thanksgiving

{jcomments on}

windsor bill 2014 10 28 mugshot ellis county jail 200w

William M. Windsor

FABOJ

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/

#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-GRANDMA’s mother, came down with Alzheimer’s, 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 don’ t 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 don’t 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-GRANDMA’s 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-GRANDMA. In my opinion, this is so they have control of her money and assets. I don’t believe they care about her. They haven’t visited her very often. According to sister KRISSY Matthews, they are using GREAT-GRANDMA’s 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 Dutschmann’s 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-GRANDMA’s 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-GRANDMA’s 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-GRANDMA’s 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 audiologist. I 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 isn’t even water in GREAT-GRANDMA’s 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 isn’t 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. I’d like to play 34-seconds of EXHIBIT 337 recorded on January 9, 2022.

[EXHIBIT 337 “Get me out of here. It’s 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-GRANDMA. Her ears are horribly impacted. She had no food or water. She hadn’t 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-GRANDMA’s 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-GRANDMA’s 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 Clerk’s 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-GRANDMA’s 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-fact’s 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 principal’s 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-GRANDMA. William 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-GRANDMA’s 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 Response. AMR 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 hasn’t 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-GRANDMA’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 didn’t 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 wasn’t 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 wasn’t 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-GRANDMA’s 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 don’t believe Michael Dutschmann’s or DOUG Dutschmann’s 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 Dutschmann’s 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 Dutschmann’s 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. I’m not quite sure what my designation is, but Third-Party Defendant is one, Counter-Defendant appears to be another, and now I guess I’m a Third–Party 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-GRANDMA’s 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-GRANDMA’s 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 can’t 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. That’s 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 DUTSCHMANN’s 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. I’m 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 DUTSCHMANN’S 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 Dutschmann’s name. EXHIBIT 2 is the purported Statutory Durable Power of Attorney in Michael Dutschmann’s name. Page 1 of the 2019 Statutory Durable Power of Attorney states: “Unless you specify otherwise…the attorney-in-fact’s 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

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 DUTSCHMANN. The revocation is EXHIBIT 12 to MARCIE’s 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 principal’ s 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 principal’s 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 agent’s 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 won’t 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 doesn’t 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, can’ t hang on much longer, sick, couldn’ t 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 MARCIE’s 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 Alzheimer’s. The records show she has never received medications used to treat Alzheimer’s 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 Alzheimer’s 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 requested. WANDA 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 MARCIE’ s 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 DUTSCHMANN’s 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 DUTSCHMANN’s 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 MARCIE’s 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/

#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

The Delaney at Lake Waco Nursing Home is sued for All Types of Wrongdoing to 83-year-old Wanda Dutschmann

A lawsuit has been filed against The Delaney at Lake Waco, a nursing home in Waco, Texas. What The Delaney at Lake Waco has done to Wanda Dutschmann and Marcie Schreck is unthinkable. Here’s the court filing, Cause Number 2021-3814-5 in McLennan County District Court…
Continue reading The Delaney at Lake Waco Nursing Home is sued for All Types of Wrongdoing to 83-year-old Wanda Dutschmann

Learn from Mistakes Criminal Defendant has made in Ellis County Texas

This is a look at the mistakes Bill Windsor believes John Eric Armstrong has made as a pro se defendant in his criminal defense in Ellis County Texas District Court Case #45576. You can learn from the mistakes of others, so whether civil or criminal, read on…
Continue reading Learn from Mistakes Criminal Defendant has made in Ellis County Texas

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING

and en banc determination

William M. Windsor (“WINDSOR”) hereby requests that the Court relieve WINDSOR from the Judgment and OPINION dated 1/25/2024 in USCA11 Case No. 22-12038 and USCA11 Case No. 22-12411, pursuant to Rules 35 and 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”).

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.

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.

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.

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.