Windsor admits SLAPPing 4 Judges and Several Attorneys


I SLAPPed federal Judge Orinda D. Evans, federal Judge William S. Duffey, and federal Judge Thomas W. Thrash, as well as Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter. 

I admit it.  I did it.

Well, to be more precise, I anti-slapped them and several attorneys…..

If you aren’t familiar with SLAPP and ANTI-SLAPP, you need to be.  I didn’t know anything about it until someone emailed me recently.  I can’t find that email, so I apologize for not being able to give credit where credit is due.

I have sent Anti-SLAPP demand letters based on Georgia law, O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1.  It’s a wonderful statute that theoretically forces people to state everything in court filings under oath — something that the attorneys rarely do.   This will make them a little more honest or enable you to rack up current claims against the attorneys and your adversaries for perjury.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) refer to suits brought in response to efforts by individuals or groups to participate in the democratic process by some person or entity that claims to have been wronged through that participation.  A common type of SLAPP suit is a defamation action. 2 Law of Defamation § 9:107 (2d. Ed.).  These SLAPP laws often have a chilling effect on the grass-roots exercise of First Amendment Rights. Id.

Because of the effect these suits can have on citizens petitioning the government for redress of grievances, numerous states have enacted some form of anti-SLAPP legislation.  Below is a list of States that have enacted some type of anti-SLAPP law or had bills pending in 2009, by Jacquelyn Kline, Legal Project:

States with Anti-SLAPP Legislation: (in alphabetical order)

Arizona: The Public Participation in Government was signed into law April 28, 2006. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 12-751 – 12-752 (2009).

Arkansas: The Citizen Participation in Government Act was signed into law April 11, 2005. ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 16-63-501 – 16-63-508 (2009)

California: California’s Claim Arising from Person’s Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech – Special Motion to Strike law was enacted in 1993. ANN.CAL.C.C.P. §425.16.

Delaware: Delaware enacted the Actions involving Public Petition and Participation, Standards for Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment in Certain Cases Involving Public Petition and Participation and Recovery of Damages in Actions Involving Public Petition and Participation. DEL. CODE. ANN. tit. 10 §§ 8136-8138 (2009).

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 768.295, 720.304(4)

Georgia: Exercise of rights of freedom of speech and right to petition government for redress of grievances; legislative findings; verification of claims; definitions; procedure on motions; exception GA. CODE ANN § 9-11-11.1 (2008)

Hawaii: HAW. Rev. Stat Vol. 13 §§634F-1 – 634F-4 (2002)

Illinois: 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 110/1, 110/5, 110/10, 110/15, 110/20, 110/25, 110/30, 110/35, 110/99 (2008).

Indiana: Chapter 7. Defense in Civil Actions Against Persons Who Act in Furtherance of the Person’s Right of Petition or Free Speech Under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana in Connection with a Public Issue. IND CODE §§ 34-7-7-1 – 34-7-7-10 (2008).

Louisiana: Special Motion to Strike. LA. CODE CIV. PROC. ANN. art. 971 (2008)

Maine: Special Motion to Dismiss. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 14 § 556 (2008).

Maryland: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. MD. CODE ANN. § 5-807 (2008).

Massachusetts: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation: Special Motion To Dismiss. MASS. GEN. LAWS. ANN. ch. 231 § 59H (2008).

Minnesota: Declaratory, Corrective, Administrative Remedies. Free Speech; Participation in Government. MINN. STAT. §§ 554.01 – 554.05 (2008).

Missouri: 537.528. Actions for damages for conduct or speech at public hearings and meetings to be considered on expedited basis-procedural issues. MO. REV. STAT. § 537-528.1-7 (2008).

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 25-21,241- 25-21,246 (2008).

Nevada: Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 1993 and amended in 1997. NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 41.635 – 41.670 (2008).

New Mexico: New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law was enacted in April of 2001. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 38-2-9.1 – 38-2-9.2 (2008).

New York: N.Y. CIV. RIGHTS 70-a; 76-a (2008); N.Y. C.P.L.R 3211(g); 3212(h) (2009)

Oklahoma: Privileged Communications defined –Exemption from Libel. OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, chap. 25 § 1443.1 (2008)

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 31.150 – 31.155 (2008).

Pennsylvania: 27 PA. CONS. STAT §§ 7707 – 7708 (2008); 27 PA. CONS. STAT §§ 8301 – 8305 (2008).

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 9-33-1 – 9-33-4 (2008); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 45-24-67 (2008);

Tennessee: TENN. CODE. ANN. §§ 4-21-1001 – 4-21-1004 (2009).

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 78B-6-1401 – 78B-6-1405 (2008)

Washington: Good faith communication to government agency-When agency or attorney general may defend against lawsuit- Costs and fees. WASH. REV. CODE § 4.24.520 (2008).

States with Judicial Doctrine on SLAPPs (No Statute)

West Virginia: There was no evidence of anti-SLAPP bills, but there have been several cases. Webb v. Fury ( 282 S.E.2d 28); Harris v. Adkins (432 S.E.2d 549)

States with Anti-SLAPP Bills (Current or Previous)

Colorado: Colorado’s Sixty-third General Assembly’s House Bill 02-1192 was introduced in 2002. The bill was read three times, with the third reading effectively stalling the bill.

Connecticut: Connecticut’s 1991 Raised Bill 7374 and 1993 House Bill 1026, Senate Bill 182, and Senate Bill 248 all failed.

Kansas: Kansas’ 1997 Senate Bill No. 287 was pulled by Senator Clark in March of 1998 because the proposed amendments by the state bar association would have made the bill essentially non-effective.

Michigan: Senate Bill 1195 was introduced in May of 2004. House Bill 4709 was introduced in April 29, 1997 and referred to the Consumer Protection Committee, where a substitute bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. However, the bill was never taken up by the Judiciary Committee.

New Hampshire: Senate Bill 661 was introduced in 1994. The state senate then requested the state supreme court’s opinion whether the bill was consistent with the state constitution. The court responded that it was not. Opinion of the Justices (SLAPP Suit Procedure)(641 A.2d 1012)

New Jersey: New Jersey does not have an anti-SLAP statute, although there were bills introduced in 1998 (Senate Bill No. 745) and in 1996 (Assembly Bill 1545). However, the New Jersey Courts have been sympathetic to those impacted by SLAPPs. As a result, the courts have allowed a defendant who successfully defeats a SLAPP-type suit to seek damages from the SLAPP filer on a claim of malicious use of process.

Texas: Texas has had numerous attempts at passing some type of anti-SLAPP laws. House Bill 1319 passed in the House of Representative, but not the Senate. Another bill passed the House State Affairs Committee, but died for lack of action because there were so many other bills pending at the end of the regular session.

In 1999, House Bill 2488 also failed in the Senate. In 2001 the same bill was reintroduced, but was not reported out of the House Civil Practices Committee. Another anti-SLAPP bill, House Bill 2723 did pass, but was vetoed by the governor on June 17, 2001.

House Bill 2267 was introduced in March 2003. Although the bill was passed out of the House Civil Practices Committee, but did not make it further.

House Bill 329 was cancelled in 2005 by Representative Joe Nixon.

Virginia: Virginia’s Senate Bill 424 from 1992 and 1993 failed.

Note: No information on North Carolina was located.


Here is one of my Anti-Slapp letters citing relevant portions of the Georgia law:

October 14, 2011

Judge William S. Duffey
United States District Court
Northern District of Georgia
75 Spring Street, SW

Suite 1721
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3361

Re: 1:09-CV-01543-WSD; 1:09-CV-02027-WSD; 1:11-CV-01922-TWT; 1:11-CV-01923-TWT; 1:11-CV-02027-TWT; and 1:11-CV-02326-TWT

Dear Judge Duffey:

I am invoking the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1. I hereby request verification of the orders that you have entered in 1:09-CV-01543-WSD and 1:09-CV-02027-WSD and all written and oral statements made by you or your counsel in 1:11-CV-01922-TWT; 1:11-CV-01923-TWT; 1:11-CV-02027-TWT; and 1:11-CV-02326-TWT.

O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1 is intended to protect Georgia citizens who participate in “matters of public significance through the exercise of their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances” from “abuse of the judicial process.”

O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1 (c): As used in this Code section, “act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern” includes any written or oral statement, writing, or petition made before or to a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, or any written or oral statement, writing, or petition made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.

Subsection (b) of this Code section also references the privilege statute, O.C.G.A. 51-5-7, specifically subsection (4), and the privilege statute in its turn incorporates the free speech and petition definition set out in O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1 (c). As established by these interlocking Code sections, the law includes two alternative definitions of a protected statement: any statement made to any “official proceeding authorized by law”; or any statement made in connection with an issue under consideration by any official proceeding. Your orders fall within this statute. (See Metzler v. Rowell et al. (248 Ga. App. 596) (547 SE2d 311) (2001).

O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1 (b): For any claim asserted against a person or entity arising from an act by that person or entity which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern, both the party asserting the claim and the party’s attorney of record, if any, shall be required to file, contemporaneously with the pleading containing the claim, a written verification under oath as set forth in Code Section 9-10-113. Such written verification shall certify that the party and his or her attorney of record, if any, have read the claim; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; that the act forming the basis for the claim is not a privileged communication under paragraph (4) of Code Section 51-5-7; and that the claim is not interposed for any improper purpose such as to suppress a person’s or entity’s right of free speech or right to petition government, or to harass, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If the claim is not verified as required by this subsection, it shall be stricken unless it is verified within ten days after the omission is called to the attention of the party asserting the claim. If a claim is verified in violation of this Code section, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the persons who signed the verification, a represented party, or both an appropriate sanction which may include dismissal of the claim and an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

The verifications required under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1 are missing.

Please either immediately file verifications for every order, or vacate your orders.

Please also note that I have made this demand on Maid of the Mist Corporation, Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd., Carl Hugo Anderson, Christopher Huber, and Sally Quillian Yates, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS, HAWKINS & PARNELL, LLP, PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP, CHRISTOPHER M. GLYNN, TIMOTHY P. RUDDY, ROBERT J. SCHUL, JUDITH L. BERRY, SANDRA CARLSON, MARC W. BROWN, and ARTHUR RUSS.

Please advise.


William M. Windsor
Office: currently confidential
Cell: 404-606-1885

In addition to sending letters to each judge and each attorney for each party they represent, I also filed Motions to Strike all of their pleadings.  Unless they provide verifications for each one within 10 days, their pleadings should be stricken by an honest judge.  Since there are no honest judges, I’m not sure where this will get me, but it will prove even more corruption.  I should have known about this years ago, but I didn’t.  I could have really used this to my advantage earlier in my litigation.  My loss is your gain.  You now know all about it.  I assure you I will make good use of this ongoing.

More Information:

First Amendment Project Anti-SLAPP Resources

Public Participation Project

D.C. Lawyer Davis Files anti-SLAPP motion Against 3M

Society of Professional Journalists

Anti-SLAPP Basics

William M. Windsor

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply