Violation #1 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Ex Parte Communications

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:

1.   I submit that it is possible that Judge Orinda D. Evans and/or a clerk for Judge Evans may have been improperly influenced in this case.  I believe it is possible that improper influence could be a criminal violation, though I have no proof.  This is only a suspicion of a possibility, and I have this suspicion because the behavior of Judge Orinda D. Evans in this matter makes no logical sense to me.

2.   The Time Slips of Maid’s Attorneys show that there was extensive ex parte communication between Maid’s Attorneys and Judge Orinda D. Evans and her staff.  While some of this may be permissible, the volume of ex parte contact certainly indicates that there were plenty of opportunities for Judge Orinda D. Evans to be improperly influenced.  There were conversations and communications between Judge Orinda D. Evans and Maid’s Attorneys that Judge Evans did not reveal to Alcatraz and me. (Exhibit #1 to Dec #23 — Evans Docket #406.)  [Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10.]  (Exhibit #967 to Dec #25.)  (I submit that this is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  I submit that this is a violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.)

3.   VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

4.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

5.    VIOLATIONS BY BRETT MENDELL — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

6.    VIOLATIONS BY SARAH L. BRIGHT — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

 

I have filed a Verified Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl Hugo Anderson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young, Sarah Bright, Brett Mendell, Phillips Lytle, Marc Brown, and Arthur P. Russ.  I have also filed a lawsuit against most of these attorneys for fraud upon the courts, RICO violations, and other violations in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia – Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD.  I am filing a complaint with the State Bar of Georgia and the New York State Bar Association.


 

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

Leave a Reply