Tag: Wanda Dutschmann

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”).

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. The one Appealed Order in 22-12411 is APPENDIX 135. It purports to place restrictions on state courts, so the Appeal must be granted.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  1. The SECOND PANEL violated the September 7, 2022 Order of this Court [APPENDIX 131] and ignored the Law of the Case Doctrine.
  2. The SECOND PANEL has outrageously dismissed WINDSOR’s appeals [APPENDIX 133] and [APPENDIX 134] falsely claiming he abandoned them.
  3. 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.
  4. From the first sentence in the Opinions, the SECOND PANEL has shown they have a complete bias against WINDSOR.
  5. 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.]

  1. 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).”

  1. 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.]
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. WINDSOR will file Judicial Complaints against Robin Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Branch, and Britt Grant.

 

THIRD PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The Second Panel did not issue an Opinion on one of the Appealed Orders.
  2. 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.”
  3. 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

  1. The SECOND PANEL’s Opinions cause significant confusion as to what in the world they are pretending to say.
  2. 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
  3. A JUDGMENT was also docketed in both cases as shown on the Dockets. [APPENDIX 129 and APPENDIX 130.]
  4. The File Stamp at the top of each page docketed in 22-12038 on APPENDIX 129 says “USCA11 Case 22-12038.”
  5. The File Stamp at the top of each page docketed in 22-12411 on APPENDIX 130 says “USCA11 Case 22-12038.”
  6. 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

  1. Only two cases were cited by the SECOND PANEL in the OPINIONS.  Neither is applicable to the instant case.
  2. 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.]
  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.]
  4. 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.”

 

  1. But the SECOND PANEL misrepresented the facts and what Timson actually provides that is relevant to the instant case.
  2. 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.]

 

  1. 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.]
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

 

  1. WINDSOR identified all the legal errors that applied to the 2022 orders.
  2. 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.]
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. WINDSOR has never filed anything frivolous, and he has not abused the federal judicial system.
  7. 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.

 

  1. 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.]
  2. 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.”
  3. 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.]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.]
  3. 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.]
  4. 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.
  5. It raised the following:

 

NINTH PARTICULARITY AS TO POINTS OF

LAW AND FACT

  1. The Judgment is VOID.
  2. 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.]
  3. WINDSOR has consistently denied jurisdiction for 12+ Years. [APPENDIX 128.]
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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

  1. Applying the Judgment prospectively is no longer equitable.
  2. In addition to the many other issues, WINDSOR is in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and has no access to funds required by the purported Injunction.
  3. 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 BranchJudge Robin RosenbaumJudge Britt Grant

  1. The SECOND PANEL appears to WINDSOR to be totally corrupt.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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

  1. When there is no legal basis for jurisdiction or an Injunction, the fact that a judge issues void orders does not make them lawful.
  2. The Appellate Courts have the power to correct such overwhelming violations of the Constitution and the law at any time.
  3. 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

  1. 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

  1. The SECOND PANEL falsely claimed on P.4. of the OPINIONS [APPENDIX 133 and APPENDIX 134] that the case was removed from state court.
  2. 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

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

Killing Mom

  1. 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

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

 

“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;”

 

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/

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America

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

 

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

windsor bill 2014 09 05 navy shirt cropped 200w

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

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

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

Delaney logo 200w Stay Away

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