Windsor prepares to testify to Grand Jury on charges of criminal racketeering by the federal judges in Georgia


I am really busy preparing to testify before the Fulton County Grand Jury on Friday, August 19, 2011.

To say that I am excited would be quite an understatement.

I have been second-guessing everything, in part due to people who have called and emailed with advice….

I put together what the TV audience thought was an excellent presentation, but I may change it from an attention-getting format to a more methodical Who, What, When, Where, How, Why format.  I am preparing binders for each of the Grand Jurors (23 plus three alternates) with tab dividers for each topic.  I will insert a CD-ROM with lots of evidence.

THANK YOU to the many people who have already sent me affidavits.  One tab in the binder will be affidavits from others who have experienced judicial corruption.  It seems to be really important for me to communicate that this isn’t just something that happened to me.  If you can email or fax a simple affidavit, I would REALLY appreciate it.  Email me at or fax to 770-578-1057.

Be sure to tune in to our Online TV Show on Sunday from 5-7 pm EDT at  I should have quite a story to share, and we will have a number of guests.  (The show ranked #1 on Shovio again last week!  Thanks for watching!!!)

If I can convince the Grand Jury to issue a Presentment against the federal judges in Atlanta, it should be the start of such efforts nationwide.  Please know that if you want to pursue criminal charges against the corrupt judges and law enforcement officials in your area, I am delighted to provide an affidavit, and I will come and testify in support of you if you like.

My experience is that many people just can’t believe this is true.  I suspect that will be my biggest challenge on Friday.  I’ve got the proof; it’s just not something that can be presented in 10 minutes.

Joe Norman

Joe Norman is a fellow victim in Florida who has proof of crimes by three of the judges I have charged — Frank M. Hull, Joel F. Dubina, and Gerald Bard Tjoflat.  Joe has written a very interesting paper:


This is a proposed outline for a story on increased power of the Federal Judiciary — power that was never intended by the founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson warned, “The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary.  That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” – Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, March 9, 1821

How omnipotent Jefferson was.

From the inception of the Federal Justice system until June 19, 1934 when the RULES ENABLING ACT was passed by Congress, all changes in policies and procedures adopted by the judiciary had to be approved by Congress.

A commentary on the act can be found at.

Rules Enabling Act (ch. 651, Pub.L. 73-415, 48 Stat. 1064, enacted June 19, 1934, 28 U.S.C. § 2072) is an Act of Congress that gave the judicial branch the power to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Amendments to the Act allowed for the creation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and other procedural court rules.

Soon after the adoption of this act a procedure called SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( FRCP 56) entered the policies and procedures of our Federal Court Rooms.   Summary Judgment allows a Judge to determine there are no triable issues and dismiss the case. Summary Judgment clearly conflicts with guarantees of the 7th Amendment and is arguably unconstitutional.  Law Professor Suja Thomas wrote a very compelling paper on this topic titled WHY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Public outcry of judicial misconduct resulted in developing a procedure for citizens to complain about judicial misconduct. This legislation was entitled Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.!openform&url=/library/fjc_catalog.nsf/DPublication!openform&parentunid=C6CA3DC8B22AC2D78525728B005C9BD3

The flaw in this act allowed for Judges of the circuit the complained of worked in to determine if misconduct did or did not occur.  Needless to say, misconduct no matter how egregious is rarely found.  This act has been modified several times although the authority to “self-police” is untouched.

It also conflicts with USSC decisions on The Doctrine of Judicial Immunity.

The Judicial Doctrine of Immunity
“Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of
acting maliciously and corruptly.” –
– United States Supreme Court

See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-819 (1982) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S., at 554, Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 287, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).

We now have an entire branch of the federal government that “self-polices” acting in any inept, corrupt manner they choose without fear of accountability, have lifetime appointment to the bench and freely abrogate basic legal standards like STARE DECISIS and RES JUDICATA to grant “winks and nods” to parties in favor with the court — evidence and law be damned.  We have Federal Judges sitting on the bench with lifetime appointment like Judge Real,0,1352114.story and Thomas Porteous

Porteous, at last check, has been removed from the bench by the 5th Circuit but still gets his salary. There is also the case of Judge William Hoeveler

These judges are protected by Congressional Judiciary Committees that arguably have a conflict of interest because all Judiciary Committee members are members of the same professional organization as the judges they are supposed to provide oversight over — THE BAR. Is there any fear, by members of the Judicary Committees, that they risk professional suicide by taking legislatitive action on judges — if an election was lost they would be back practicing law in front of judges that might be affronted by legislation passed.

I personally believe I have sufficient evidence to indict the 11th U.S. Circuit of crimes identical to those committed at Enron And Worldcom. I found a law 18 USC 3332 which requires a U.S. Attorney to take my evidence to a Special Grand Jury but USA Alexander Acosta refused so I filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida ( 08-21366) which was dismissed by Judge William Hoeveler. In his Dismissal ORDER, Hoeveler admitted he did not review the entire case but rather “pertinent parts’ prior to the ORDER.

Originally the Canons of the MODEL CODE OF FEDERAL JUDGE CONDUCT used the word “shall” when defining compliance with the Canons.   The word “shall” was changed on July 1, 2009 to “should” and compliance is now considered ‘aspirational.”


Thanks to Sue Bell of for this:

JUDGE EDITH H. JONES Tells Harvard Law School: “American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition”

William M. Windsor

{jcomments on}



Leave a Reply