How our judges deny human rights to children taken into care - Telegraph
The right to family life - invoked to get a burglar out of prison, or a celebrity granted a super-injunction - is denied to many children, says Christopher Booker.
At half past 10 one night, the week before last, several cars drew up outside a family home “somewhere in southern England”. A 12-year-old girl was asleep in bed upstairs. Earlier in the day, she had been fetched home from school because she was ill. Also in the house were her disabled father and her two brothers, in their twenties. One of them, I am told, recorded the events on video as the house filled with eight policemen, helping two social workers to drag the girl to a car. She was crying and protesting, “What have I done wrong?”
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Child protection system tears two more families apart
Child protection system tears two more families apart - Telegraph
Two shocking cases of children taken into care on the flimsiest pretexts.
The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level.
In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.
Two shocking cases of children taken into care on the flimsiest pretexts.
The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level.
In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Whatever happened To The OTHER Isabella Switched at Birth In Nashua, NH Hospital? Documentation include's Testimony of DCYF Worker Melissa Deane
Whatever happened To The OTHER Isabella Switched at Birth In Nashua, NH Hospital?
As you all know, I posted a post on my blog pertaining to my granddaughter Isabella being switched at birth at a Nashua, NH Hospital. If you haven't read the post, it is located on the right side of my blog-http://unhappygrammy-grandparentsblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/nashua-nh-hospital-gave-new-mother.html.
Though my daughter talk's about her stolen daughter every so often these day's, it's a very painful subject for her. The loss of her daughter has been the most painful experience of her life, which makes it very hard to question her about detail's or her and Isabella's horrible ordeal.
I took a chance and questioned her yesterday. I asked her if she remembered the name of the mother of the other Isabella who was switched with her Isabella. She sat and thought a few minutes and then it came to her. She knew who the mother was. She knew the baby was sent home with her grandmother. And as far as she know's, there was no DCYF involvement. Probably because her family has money and DCYF only steal's healthy babies. She also knew the mother served time in jail and was visited weekly by her daughter Isabella and to the best of her knowledge is raising her daughter now.
So why was my daughter REALLY reported to DCYF by the Social Worker from the hospital? I truly believe it was because the Nurse gave her the wrong baby and my daughter flipped out. She was reported to DCYF the same day of the baby switch. She was then treated like the scum of the earth, as well as the rest of her family. The Social Worker told DCYF Isabella was withdrawing and my daughter had illegal drug's in her system, even though the Toxicology report came back two day's after her false report. The Report that show's Morphine in Isabella's system. The MORPHINE THE HOSPITAL GAVE MY DAUGHTER BY IV FOR NINETEEN HOUR'S because the baby was PLACENTA-PREVIA. MORPHINE GIVEN IN LABOR THAT SPILL'S INTO THE BABY>(See Documentation below.) Even the head of the Hospital admitted Isabella was perfectly healthy and was NOT withdrawing. She stated she would handle the hospital staff for their wrong doing, but we would have to fight DCYF ourselves. Also, please see below a page out of the Probate Court transcript where my daughter's Lawyer questioned the DCYF Assessment worker, who admitted she didn't know my daughter was given MORPHINE in labor and also testified as to what the hospital social worker told her on September 2nd, 2 day's before the Toxicology Report was back. Almost six year's later, we're still fighting for Isabella's return.
Isabella's Toxicology Report Showing Morphine and NOT tested for Methadone
Probate Court Testimony of DCYF Assessment Worker Melissa Deane
As you all know, I posted a post on my blog pertaining to my granddaughter Isabella being switched at birth at a Nashua, NH Hospital. If you haven't read the post, it is located on the right side of my blog-http://unhappygrammy-grandparentsblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/nashua-nh-hospital-gave-new-mother.html.
Though my daughter talk's about her stolen daughter every so often these day's, it's a very painful subject for her. The loss of her daughter has been the most painful experience of her life, which makes it very hard to question her about detail's or her and Isabella's horrible ordeal.
I took a chance and questioned her yesterday. I asked her if she remembered the name of the mother of the other Isabella who was switched with her Isabella. She sat and thought a few minutes and then it came to her. She knew who the mother was. She knew the baby was sent home with her grandmother. And as far as she know's, there was no DCYF involvement. Probably because her family has money and DCYF only steal's healthy babies. She also knew the mother served time in jail and was visited weekly by her daughter Isabella and to the best of her knowledge is raising her daughter now.
So why was my daughter REALLY reported to DCYF by the Social Worker from the hospital? I truly believe it was because the Nurse gave her the wrong baby and my daughter flipped out. She was reported to DCYF the same day of the baby switch. She was then treated like the scum of the earth, as well as the rest of her family. The Social Worker told DCYF Isabella was withdrawing and my daughter had illegal drug's in her system, even though the Toxicology report came back two day's after her false report. The Report that show's Morphine in Isabella's system. The MORPHINE THE HOSPITAL GAVE MY DAUGHTER BY IV FOR NINETEEN HOUR'S because the baby was PLACENTA-PREVIA. MORPHINE GIVEN IN LABOR THAT SPILL'S INTO THE BABY>(See Documentation below.) Even the head of the Hospital admitted Isabella was perfectly healthy and was NOT withdrawing. She stated she would handle the hospital staff for their wrong doing, but we would have to fight DCYF ourselves. Also, please see below a page out of the Probate Court transcript where my daughter's Lawyer questioned the DCYF Assessment worker, who admitted she didn't know my daughter was given MORPHINE in labor and also testified as to what the hospital social worker told her on September 2nd, 2 day's before the Toxicology Report was back. Almost six year's later, we're still fighting for Isabella's return.
Isabella's Toxicology Report Showing Morphine and NOT tested for Methadone
Probate Court Testimony of DCYF Assessment Worker Melissa Deane
Windsor Banned from Filing a Lawsuit Anywhere in America
Windsor Banned from Filing a Lawsuit Anywhere in America
William M. Windsor has been BANNED from filing any lawsuit anywhere in America.
Pictures don't usually do people "justice," but so-called judge Thomas Woodrow Thrash actually looks like this. Permanent menacing frown!
Mr. Thrash issued his decision at about 2:30 pm on July 15, 2011. Before he could issue a formal order, I had an appeal prepared, and I went and filed it before he could....
I am not surprised by this outrageous attempt to silence me, but I am sickened by it.
Special thanks to the great group of guys who showed up to support me. Their presence was invaluable, as I will explain in my report....
Can you spell Kangaroo Court? That's what this was.
The courtroom was packed with people there just for this hearing. I had 8 to 10 people. There were a couple of unknown people, one of whom MAY have been a reporter. I had two assigned "Bodyguards" from the U.S. Marshal Service who went everywhere with me but to the bathroom. Then the gallery on the Defendants' side was jammed (maybe 30 people who came special). I assume most of the people, young women, work for the various judges who are being sued.
Mr. Thrash asked "counsel" to stand and identify themselves and who they represent. Christopher Huber said he was representing the United States, who he claims is a Defendant even though they aren't. I then stood and said: My name is William M. Windsor, and I am representing myself and all of the Americans all over the country who have been victimized by our corrupt federal judicial system." I figured I would just call a Spade a Spade from the outset! I would loved to have seen the looks on the faces of the Defendants' gallery. You could have heard a pin drop!
Mr. Thrash then refused to allow me to state objections, and he gave each side only 20 minutes to present arguments. Thrash had previously ordered that I could bring no more than 100 pieces of paper into the room, and I was denied subpoenas for witnesses. His previous orders are all on appeal, so he was without jurisdiction to hold the hearing, but these corrupt people have no concern whatsoever about the facts or the law. NONE.
Mr. Huber gave about a 10-minute argument, which was basically that I have filed eight lawsuits, and courts have declared me to be vexatious. That is as far from the truth as anyone can get, as I have well-documented.
I was then allegedly given 20 minutes, but it seemed to me that he tried to cut me off a little early, but he allowed me to complete all I had planned to say anyway. At the bottom of this article, I will add my script that I spoke from. As soon as I get the transcript, I will post it here.
I began by asking the judge if an order had already been prepared announcing the outcome of the hearing. BEET RED was his face! He snapped at me, and said: "I'm not going to answer any of your questions." At our house, we call this "calling waisties on someone." I figured he had already prepared the order and it wouldn't matter what I presented. By asking him, he couldn't very easily immediately file an order after the hearing ended. Be sure to read to the end to find out how this plays out....
I did not mince words, but I was as respectful as one can be while telling a judge that he is a criminal. Mr. Thrash's face seemed to get redder and redder, but he held his tongue during my presentation. At all other times, he was like a viper, cutting me off in a nanosecond.
I probably spent 10 minutes objecting to him violating every rule in the book. Then I spent about 7 minutes talking about what the case is about -- the fact that the federal judicial system employees in Atlanta operate a criminal racketeering enterprise. Once again, you could have heard a pin drop. If you were sent to observe the hearing by the judge you work for, the hearing just took on a whole new meaning for you. The smartest of them should realize that they could go to prison, too. If there is an honest one, they might come forward....
At one point, I said: Your honor, I have researched you. I have run reports and analyzed every single case you have presided over involving pro se plaintiffs. [I held the papers up.] I was surprised to discover that you have an absolutely PERFECT record! In your entire career, you have NEVER ruled in favor of a pro se plaintiff. [pause for effect.] NOT ONE! You have the same perfect record on jury trials. No pro se plaintiff ever received their jury trial. You dismiss 90% of the cases that come before you, and the other 10% lose at summary judgment because they didn't think to file a motion to dismiss (or wanted to run up the legal fees). [You could have heard a lot of pins drop on that one. Now the observers are thinking, oh my God, he is digging into all the dirt.] Then I said, your honor, your record really surprised and disappointed me, but I then did the same analysis for every federal district court judge in Atlanta, and I discovered that they all have perfect records, too! There is not one case of a pro se plaintiff ever winning in federal court in Atlanta.
I made it absolutely clear that I have undeniable proof of criminal racketeering by him and the federal judges and judicial staff in Atlanta. I looked him right straight in the eye and told him he's a crook who has violated numerous criminal statutes.
Toward the end, I commented on the reported government plot to have me assassinated. I said I found it hard to believe at first, but stranger things have happened. Several judicial corruption activits have been murdered mysteriously. Then, I paused for effect, and after several seconds of dead silence, I said: "The truth of the matter is that killing me would be the smartest thing the government could do. That's the only way you will stop me. Rest assured that I will spend the rest of my life exposing all of you and bringing you to justice. I am now connected with over 10,000 people around the country, and we are organizing. We are going to return justice to our federal judicial system. We are owed fundamental rights, and we will get them back."
Mr. Huber had nothing to add at the end, and Mr. Thrash immediately announced that he was entering a permanent injunction that denied me the right to file any lawsuit in any court anywhere in America. He read right from the pre-written order that he should not have had except in a Kangraoo Court. I hope some of the observers will write their observations for us to read, because it was something to see.
This hearing was a visual presentation of corruption at its worst. Complete denial of due process. A ruling issued totally to try to protect the criminal racketeering enterprise (federal courts in Georgia) from being brought to task.
This is exactly what I expected, so don't feel bad for me. Just get mad. There's still a lot of other acts before the fat lady sings, and no one will ever stop me from fighting and exposing these crooks. I made that very clear to all in attendance.
The minute the hearing ended, Gary, Jeff, and I went straight to the Clerk of the Court's Office where I filed an appeal. I beat the order that shouldn't have been prepared in advance to the Clerk. That was the plan. Jeff and Gary commented how they saw the judge reading from an order that was written in advance.
So, they want to stop me any way they can. They have to stop me because they will go to prison, lose their jobs and reputations, and much more when I succeed in exposing them. I told Mr. Thrash that if I reach a jury, they will absolutely crucify him and all of the other Defendants. And they will.
Ladies and gentlemen, our federal judiciary is hopelessly corrupt. They are criminals. We have to wake up our fellow Americans.
For me, I've been at this for six years, and it's only beginning. Now we are organizing a force to be reckoned with.
Here's my script -- not all of it was used, and then I spoke extemporaneously at the end about the plight America is in:
I Object because you (Judge Thrash) do not have any jurisdiction in this matter.
The Court's orders were, and are, void. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." (Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).)
Fraud was committed in the removal of this case from the Fulton County Superior Court. This fraud means this Court does not have jurisdiction.
You have committed fraud upon the court as has the U.S. Attorney. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You have not followed mandatory statutory procedures. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You committed unlawful acts. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You have violated due process. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You are part of a criminal racketeering enterprise. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You have not complied with the rules, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Upon information and belief, you do not have a copy of your oath of office in your chambers. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
It is clear and well-established law that a judge MUST first determine whether he has jurisdiction before hearing and ruling in any case. You failed to do so, and your so-called orders are void.
(Adams v. State, No. 1:07-cv-2924-WSD-CCH (N.D.Ga. 03/05/2008).) (See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998); see also University of S. Ala. v. The Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[O]nce a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue."). (Jean Dean v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 2:10-cv-564-FtM-29SPC (M.D.Fla. 04/21/2011).) (Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994).)
You have demonstrated pervasive bias, and you lost jurisdiction when you failed to recuse yourself. A study of pro se cases that you have handled reveals that you have a proven overwhelming bias against pro se plaintiffs. You have an “extra-judicial” bias against pro se parties. According to my review of every case you have ever handled in your career using www.versuslaw.com, no pro se plaintiff has ever won in your court; 90% of pro se cases are dismissed, and 10% are defeated at summary judgment; no pro se plaintiff has ever received a jury trial
Failure to follow the mandatory requirements of the law is a further evidence of the appearance of your partiality. This required recusal.
“Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judges impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." (Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).)
Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts face of clearly statutes valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
"When there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
you have committed treason.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” Article 1of the Georgia Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.”
All of these rights have been violated.
You have improperly foreclosed my access to the court. You issued an injunction without giving me the opportunity to be heard at a hearing. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any governmental deprivation of a property or liberty interest. (Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).)
Meaningful access to the courts is a Constitutional right that has been denied by you, and your latest order denies significant rights.
(See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 & n.12, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2187 & n.12, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002).)
There has been no Show Cause order issued to me as required by Eleventh Circuit law. I have had no proper notice.
Upon these findings and consistent with Eleventh Circuit law, this Court required Plaintiff to show cause within ten days… why a Martin-Trigona injunction should not be entered. (See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986); Torres v. McCoun, No. 8:08-cv-1605-T-33MSS (M.D.Fla. 09/10/2008); Western Water Management, Inc. v. Brown, 40 F.3d 105, 109 (5th Cir. 1994).) [emphasis added.]
Every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Whenever any judge violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, as TWT has, then he has defrauded not only the Plaintiff involved, but has also the government. TWT is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, TWT is collecting monies for work not performed.
Removal was illegal.
Refusal to allow filing of Motion for Remand is illegal. You have ignored the legal requirement that you review the Notices of Removal. Your response was to order that my Motion for Remand presented to the Clerk will not be filed. (See Exhibit 4 – Letter dated July 5, 2011 and Exhibit 5 – Order refusing to allow the Motion for Remand to be filed.) As the Notices of Removal were improper, the cases should have been remanded. (Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Motion for Remand.)
Object to denial of protection following report of assassination plot against me.
Object that there are no valid orders in this matter.
The orders issued by you are invalid. Orders have not been signed, issued under seal, or signed by the Clerk of the Court in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691.
The word “process” at 28 U.S.C. 1691 means a court order. See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884); Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891); U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897); Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904); U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921); In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924); Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968); and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).
Object to being denied subpoenas. I needed to subpoena witnesses for the hearing. I am not able to prove everything that I need to prove without subpoenaed witnesses. It is an unthinkable violation of Constitutional rights and rights to due process to deny subpoenas. The only reason to deny subpoenas is to try to suppress the truth and railroad Windsor through another Kangaroo Court.
Object to being denied documents. A limit of 100 pages meant that I brought nothing. I had organized dozens of boxes of proof.
Object to timing of orders denying right to respond.
Object to the Court’s conspiracy with the Clerk of the Court’s Office to block filing of documents, destruction or disappearance of documents, etc.
Object to the outrageous and illegal filing restrictions and denial of absolutely valid motions and documents.
Object to the unbelievable bias. Already decided the case with no facts but mine.
Object to the illegal claim of use of judicial notice. Only facts may be admitted.
Object to refusal to recuse.
Object to the repeated violation of everything – Rules, statutes, criminal statutes.
Object to perjury in your orders and one giant case of obstruction of justice.
Object that you have found facts in this matter in favor of the Plaintiffs when the only party with sworn affidavits has been me.
Object to Judge Thrash’s absolutely false claim that this matter is not stayed.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because one of the district court's rulings (1) imposed an injunction; or (2) had the practical effect of an injunction; or (3) worked a modification of an injunction. The PROTECTIVE ORDER denies my rights and implicitly enjoins me from future exercise of rights.
Injunctions are appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(a). A court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act is an injunction. The PROTECTIVE ORDER prohibits Windsor from filing anything.
See Black's Law Dictionary 784 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "injunction" as "[a] court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act or commanding someone to undo some wrong or injury"). (Nken v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (U.S. 04/22/2009).)
(See also KPMG, LLP v. SEC, 289 F.3d 109, 124 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Lundberg v. United States, No. 09-01466 (D.D.C. 07/01/2010).)
Judge Thrash entered “a court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act,” and that is an injunction (or a restraining order). It is immaterial that this Court did not call the prohibitions on Windsor an injunction or restraining order.
“…we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1982), which permits an immediate appeal from the issuance of a new or modified injunction. It is immaterial that the court characterized the March order as a finding of contempt. ‘an injunction does not cease to be appealable under section 1292(a) (1) merely because it is contained in an order for civil contempt.’ Szabo v. U.S. Marine Corp., 819 F.2d 714, 718 (7th Cir. 1987); see also I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., 252 U.S. App. D.C. 189, 789 F.2d 21, 23-24 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 971, 107 S. Ct. 473, 93 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1986). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over Eastern's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1).” (06/07/88 International Association v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., No. 88-7079, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.)
…preliminary injunctions are appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See, e.g., El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 482 (1999).
…we have appellate jurisdiction to review the District Court's granting or denying of a preliminary injunction. See Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). A restraining order lasting longer than 14 days generally is considered an injunction, the granting or denying of which is subject to appeal. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86 (1974); United States v. E-Gold, Ltd., 521 F.3d 411, 414-15 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (order restraining "assets pending trial and judgment" is an "injunction" under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)). (In re Any and all Funds or Other Assets, in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Account #8870792 in the Name of Tiger Eye Investments Ltd., 613 F.3d 1122 (D.C.Cir. 07/16/2010).)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), the court has jurisdiction to review "[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions...." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Although the provision is typically invoked to appeal preliminary injunctions, it can be invoked to appeal permanent injunctions that are interlocutory in nature. Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U.S. 518 (1897); see also Ty, Inc. v. Publ'ns Int'l Ltd., 292 F.3d 512, 516 (7th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 892 (2003); Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Med. & Dentistry, 867 F.2d 1455, 1464 n.7 (3d Cir. 1989); CFTC v. Preferred Capital Inv. Co., 664 F.2d 1316, 1319 n.4 (5th Cir. 1982); 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3924 (2d ed. 1996). (National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. ExpressTrak, L.L.C., 330 F.3d 523 (D.C.Cir. 06/06/2003).)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), circuit courts have jurisdiction to review "[i]nterlocutory orders . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions." Regardless of how the district court may choose to characterize its order, section 1292(a)(1) applies to any order that has "the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction," so long as it also "might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence, and . . . can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal." I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 23-24 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). [emphasis added.]
Some of the appealed orders may be considered “collateral orders.” It deals with an important issue that is completely separate from the underlying civil action, and it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment because the impact cannot be reversed, and no compensation is available for the wrongdoing.
In order to be considered a collateral order, it would have to "…resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (footnote omitted). See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (setting out the collateral order doctrine). (See also Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2000).)
To be appealable as a collateral order under Cohen, "the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Risjord, 449 U.S. at 375 (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351, 98 S. Ct. 2454 (1978)). (United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 06/08/1995).)
In this matter, Judge Thrash issued an order that had immediate and irreparable impact on me. The statute of limitations is running on claims that I need to file, and Judge Thrash
The courts of appeal have considered “irreparable harm” relevant in determining whether jurisdiction is available pursuant to the collateral order doctrine -- which the Government does not invoke -- but not pursuant to § 1291 itself. See Trout, 891 F.2d at 335; Rosenfeld, 859 F.2d at 721-22; Palmer v. City of Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316, 1318 (7th Cir. 1986).
Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 201, 204 (1848), which held an interlocutory appeal will lie from an order that "directs the property in dispute to be delivered to the complainant" and "subject[s the appellant] to irreparable injury."
In the words of Judge Duffey:
("[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."). (Bryant v. Jones, No. 1:04-cv-2462-WSD (N.D.Ga. 01/10/2007).)
I have many orders from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that provide that this civil action is stayed and hundreds from federal courts everywhere.
Failure to acknowledge this stay and follow the mandatory requirements of the law is a further evidence of the appearance of partiality of Judge Thrash. This requires recusal.
“Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judges impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." (Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).)
Failure to acknowledge this stay will be an act contrary to law and all of these orders were issued without lawful authority and were void ab initio. The disqualification motions against Judge Thrash become self-executing.
Failure to acknowledge this stay will establish a lack of jurisdiction by Judge Thrash, and as Judge Thrash knows he is operating without jurisdiction, he loses any claim of judicial immunity.
Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts face of clearly statutes valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
"When there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
Failure to acknowledge this stay will be a gross violation of the law and will be a void order. Failure to acknowledge this stay will be a gross violation of Windsor’s Constitutional rights.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction due to the Collateral Order Doctrine. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545--47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225--26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Appealed Orders have conclusively determined disputed questions; have “resolved” important issues completely separate from the merits of the action; and are unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, because there will be none!
Object to unclean hands. U.S. Attorney’s Office has committed extensive wrongdoing.
MOVE THAT JUDGE THRASH RECUSE HIMSELF. Judge Thrash has demonstrated pervasive bias and must recuse himself. A study of pro se cases that Judge Thrash has handled reveals that Judge Thrash has a proven bias against pro se plaintiffs. Judge Thrash has an “extra-judicial” bias against pro se parties.
Move that the MOTION BE DISMISSED FOR VOID OF EVIDENCE.
THIS MOTION IS A JOKE. THIS HEARING IS A SHAM .
All I am doing is attempting to stand up for my rights and the rights of every American that have been stolen by this corrupt federal judicial system.
Federal judges in Atlanta are corrupt.
An online legal dictionary defines corrupt as “having an unlawful or evil motive; especially characterized by improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another.”
This description properly defines you all.
Officers of the court have conspired to perpetrate fraud directed squarely at the integrity of the decision-making of the federal courts. Intentional misstatements of facts or omissions of material facts with knowledge of falsity, or in reckless disregard for whether statements were true or false were made again and again and again.
This civil action is a complaint that says the federal courts in Atlanta are a criminal racketeering enterporise!
It is about the most fundamental legal issues that exist: justice; honesty; fair play; equal protection; due process; Constitutional protections; the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge; the requirement that witnesses, attorneys, and judges tell the truth; the requirement that witnesses, attorneys, and judges do not violate the laws of the state and the country, abuse litigants, and commit fraud upon the courts.
This civil action is about these dishonest federal judges, a judicial system that tramples the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and the failure of the various individuals authorities established to protect citizens to do anything about this.
The United States government has committed fraud. The government told me that I would be protected by the Constitution. The government knew this was not true. I believed the government. I was not protected, and I was damaged.
The serious issues presented herein came to my attention through my experience in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“N.D.Ga.”) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”). A massive fraud upon the courts has been perpetrated by Maid of the Mist Corporation (“MOTM”), Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company Ltd (“Steamboat”), Maid’s Attorneys – Hawkins & Parnell (“H&P”) and Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, (“Mr. Anderson”), Judge Orinda D. Evans (“Judge Evans”), Judge William S. Duffey (“Judge Duffey”), you, and others.
While I do not have proof that judges have been paid to make decisions, it is one of the only logical explanations for what is taking place.
District Court judges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“N.D.Ga.”) ignore the facts; invent their own facts; ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”); ignore the law; ignore applicable case law; cite erroneous case law; commit perjury by making statements that they know to be false in their orders; violate parties’ rights in any way they can; commit obstruction of justice; and trample the Constitutional rights of litigants without a thought. They manipulate the judicial system to deprive parties such as me of their legal and Constitutional rights.
Appellate Court judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”) ignore the facts; ignore the points of error of appellants; ignore the law; ignore applicable case law; cite erroneous case law; issue short, inadequate decisions; do whatever it takes to support their friends at the District Courts; and trample the Constitutional rights of litigants.
The judicial system supports this dishonesty and illegality. The “system” denies any form of valid recourse for an aggrieved citizen.
Aggrieved citizens find it next to impossible to take legal action against judges. Judges ignore perjury. There is no law that permits an aggrieved citizen to sue over perjury. The only recourse against a N.D.Ga. federal judge is to file a complaint with the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit (“Judicial Council”). The complaints must be no more than five pages. The Judicial Council ignores valid complaints and claims there is no proof when there is plenty. The aggrieved citizens have no recourse. Since the Supreme Court isn’t really in the business of correcting errors by the lower courts, the N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit combine to have tyrannical power.
The Chief Judges of N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Julie E. Carnes (“Judge Carnes”) and Judge Joel F. Dubina (“Judge Dubina”), have ignored the wrongdoing of their fellow judges. I wrote to them to complain. I was ignored. These judges support the wrongdoing, and they actively participate in the wrongdoing.
The Judicial Council (headed by Judge Dubina) ignores the facts; ignores the law; says and does whatever it takes to protect their fellow judges; and tramples the Constitutional and legal rights of U.S. citizens. I filed a complaint against Judge Evans, and it was not pursued. The Judicial Council ignored massive dishonesty and criminal violations.
The United States of America, the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates, Assistant United States Attorney Gentry Shelnutt, the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Congressman John Conyers, the president, every member of the House and Senate, every federal appellate court judge, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Special Agent Gregory Jones ignored complaints from me about the Constitutional violations of the federal judges in N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit. Through their inaction, they have endorsed violation of the Constitutional protections granted the citizens of the United States that they are supposed to protect.
“A free society can exist only to the extent that those charged with enforcing the law respect it themselves. There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of the law, and with the colors of justice. The law enforcers may themselves offer inducements to transgress if, and only if, the persons so induced were predisposed to violate the law and the offered inducements provided only the opportunity to act on their predispositions. A society cannot long remain free if we permit the law enforcer to offer more than opportunity for transgression." (U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).) “Federal public policy, and, indeed, basic social policy, dictate that it is better to let a technical transgressor go free than to allow federal law enforcement officials to manufacture crime that entraps the unwary innocent.”
Since Federal policy is to let the “probably guilty” go free rather than risk allowing law enforcement to break the law, it should be federal policy that judges and government officials who break the law should lose any and all protection.
In an alleged effort to insulate judges from regular legal actions against them, these same judges have obliterated the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. Judges have been sanctioned to commit crimes and break laws with no concern about consequences.
This is not the story of one litigant upset with rulings in his case. This is the story of the fantasy of Constitutional rights and justice in the United States federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia.
I have massive proof of all of this, and it is in the record of the courts.
I am committed to fixing this cancer. I will spend the rest of my life working to expose you and bring you to justice.
William M. Windsor
William M. Windsor has been BANNED from filing any lawsuit anywhere in America.
Pictures don't usually do people "justice," but so-called judge Thomas Woodrow Thrash actually looks like this. Permanent menacing frown!
Mr. Thrash issued his decision at about 2:30 pm on July 15, 2011. Before he could issue a formal order, I had an appeal prepared, and I went and filed it before he could....
I am not surprised by this outrageous attempt to silence me, but I am sickened by it.
Special thanks to the great group of guys who showed up to support me. Their presence was invaluable, as I will explain in my report....
Can you spell Kangaroo Court? That's what this was.
The courtroom was packed with people there just for this hearing. I had 8 to 10 people. There were a couple of unknown people, one of whom MAY have been a reporter. I had two assigned "Bodyguards" from the U.S. Marshal Service who went everywhere with me but to the bathroom. Then the gallery on the Defendants' side was jammed (maybe 30 people who came special). I assume most of the people, young women, work for the various judges who are being sued.
Mr. Thrash asked "counsel" to stand and identify themselves and who they represent. Christopher Huber said he was representing the United States, who he claims is a Defendant even though they aren't. I then stood and said: My name is William M. Windsor, and I am representing myself and all of the Americans all over the country who have been victimized by our corrupt federal judicial system." I figured I would just call a Spade a Spade from the outset! I would loved to have seen the looks on the faces of the Defendants' gallery. You could have heard a pin drop!
Mr. Thrash then refused to allow me to state objections, and he gave each side only 20 minutes to present arguments. Thrash had previously ordered that I could bring no more than 100 pieces of paper into the room, and I was denied subpoenas for witnesses. His previous orders are all on appeal, so he was without jurisdiction to hold the hearing, but these corrupt people have no concern whatsoever about the facts or the law. NONE.
Mr. Huber gave about a 10-minute argument, which was basically that I have filed eight lawsuits, and courts have declared me to be vexatious. That is as far from the truth as anyone can get, as I have well-documented.
I was then allegedly given 20 minutes, but it seemed to me that he tried to cut me off a little early, but he allowed me to complete all I had planned to say anyway. At the bottom of this article, I will add my script that I spoke from. As soon as I get the transcript, I will post it here.
I began by asking the judge if an order had already been prepared announcing the outcome of the hearing. BEET RED was his face! He snapped at me, and said: "I'm not going to answer any of your questions." At our house, we call this "calling waisties on someone." I figured he had already prepared the order and it wouldn't matter what I presented. By asking him, he couldn't very easily immediately file an order after the hearing ended. Be sure to read to the end to find out how this plays out....
I did not mince words, but I was as respectful as one can be while telling a judge that he is a criminal. Mr. Thrash's face seemed to get redder and redder, but he held his tongue during my presentation. At all other times, he was like a viper, cutting me off in a nanosecond.
I probably spent 10 minutes objecting to him violating every rule in the book. Then I spent about 7 minutes talking about what the case is about -- the fact that the federal judicial system employees in Atlanta operate a criminal racketeering enterprise. Once again, you could have heard a pin drop. If you were sent to observe the hearing by the judge you work for, the hearing just took on a whole new meaning for you. The smartest of them should realize that they could go to prison, too. If there is an honest one, they might come forward....
At one point, I said: Your honor, I have researched you. I have run reports and analyzed every single case you have presided over involving pro se plaintiffs. [I held the papers up.] I was surprised to discover that you have an absolutely PERFECT record! In your entire career, you have NEVER ruled in favor of a pro se plaintiff. [pause for effect.] NOT ONE! You have the same perfect record on jury trials. No pro se plaintiff ever received their jury trial. You dismiss 90% of the cases that come before you, and the other 10% lose at summary judgment because they didn't think to file a motion to dismiss (or wanted to run up the legal fees). [You could have heard a lot of pins drop on that one. Now the observers are thinking, oh my God, he is digging into all the dirt.] Then I said, your honor, your record really surprised and disappointed me, but I then did the same analysis for every federal district court judge in Atlanta, and I discovered that they all have perfect records, too! There is not one case of a pro se plaintiff ever winning in federal court in Atlanta.
I made it absolutely clear that I have undeniable proof of criminal racketeering by him and the federal judges and judicial staff in Atlanta. I looked him right straight in the eye and told him he's a crook who has violated numerous criminal statutes.
Toward the end, I commented on the reported government plot to have me assassinated. I said I found it hard to believe at first, but stranger things have happened. Several judicial corruption activits have been murdered mysteriously. Then, I paused for effect, and after several seconds of dead silence, I said: "The truth of the matter is that killing me would be the smartest thing the government could do. That's the only way you will stop me. Rest assured that I will spend the rest of my life exposing all of you and bringing you to justice. I am now connected with over 10,000 people around the country, and we are organizing. We are going to return justice to our federal judicial system. We are owed fundamental rights, and we will get them back."
Mr. Huber had nothing to add at the end, and Mr. Thrash immediately announced that he was entering a permanent injunction that denied me the right to file any lawsuit in any court anywhere in America. He read right from the pre-written order that he should not have had except in a Kangraoo Court. I hope some of the observers will write their observations for us to read, because it was something to see.
This hearing was a visual presentation of corruption at its worst. Complete denial of due process. A ruling issued totally to try to protect the criminal racketeering enterprise (federal courts in Georgia) from being brought to task.
This is exactly what I expected, so don't feel bad for me. Just get mad. There's still a lot of other acts before the fat lady sings, and no one will ever stop me from fighting and exposing these crooks. I made that very clear to all in attendance.
The minute the hearing ended, Gary, Jeff, and I went straight to the Clerk of the Court's Office where I filed an appeal. I beat the order that shouldn't have been prepared in advance to the Clerk. That was the plan. Jeff and Gary commented how they saw the judge reading from an order that was written in advance.
So, they want to stop me any way they can. They have to stop me because they will go to prison, lose their jobs and reputations, and much more when I succeed in exposing them. I told Mr. Thrash that if I reach a jury, they will absolutely crucify him and all of the other Defendants. And they will.
Ladies and gentlemen, our federal judiciary is hopelessly corrupt. They are criminals. We have to wake up our fellow Americans.
For me, I've been at this for six years, and it's only beginning. Now we are organizing a force to be reckoned with.
Here's my script -- not all of it was used, and then I spoke extemporaneously at the end about the plight America is in:
I Object because you (Judge Thrash) do not have any jurisdiction in this matter.
The Court's orders were, and are, void. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." (Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).)
Fraud was committed in the removal of this case from the Fulton County Superior Court. This fraud means this Court does not have jurisdiction.
You have committed fraud upon the court as has the U.S. Attorney. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You have not followed mandatory statutory procedures. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You committed unlawful acts. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You have violated due process. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You are part of a criminal racketeering enterprise. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
You have not complied with the rules, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Upon information and belief, you do not have a copy of your oath of office in your chambers. This means this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
It is clear and well-established law that a judge MUST first determine whether he has jurisdiction before hearing and ruling in any case. You failed to do so, and your so-called orders are void.
(Adams v. State, No. 1:07-cv-2924-WSD-CCH (N.D.Ga. 03/05/2008).) (See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998); see also University of S. Ala. v. The Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[O]nce a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue."). (Jean Dean v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 2:10-cv-564-FtM-29SPC (M.D.Fla. 04/21/2011).) (Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994).)
You have demonstrated pervasive bias, and you lost jurisdiction when you failed to recuse yourself. A study of pro se cases that you have handled reveals that you have a proven overwhelming bias against pro se plaintiffs. You have an “extra-judicial” bias against pro se parties. According to my review of every case you have ever handled in your career using www.versuslaw.com, no pro se plaintiff has ever won in your court; 90% of pro se cases are dismissed, and 10% are defeated at summary judgment; no pro se plaintiff has ever received a jury trial
Failure to follow the mandatory requirements of the law is a further evidence of the appearance of your partiality. This required recusal.
“Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judges impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." (Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).)
Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts face of clearly statutes valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
"When there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
you have committed treason.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” Article 1of the Georgia Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.”
All of these rights have been violated.
You have improperly foreclosed my access to the court. You issued an injunction without giving me the opportunity to be heard at a hearing. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any governmental deprivation of a property or liberty interest. (Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).)
Meaningful access to the courts is a Constitutional right that has been denied by you, and your latest order denies significant rights.
(See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 & n.12, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2187 & n.12, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002).)
There has been no Show Cause order issued to me as required by Eleventh Circuit law. I have had no proper notice.
Upon these findings and consistent with Eleventh Circuit law, this Court required Plaintiff to show cause within ten days… why a Martin-Trigona injunction should not be entered. (See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986); Torres v. McCoun, No. 8:08-cv-1605-T-33MSS (M.D.Fla. 09/10/2008); Western Water Management, Inc. v. Brown, 40 F.3d 105, 109 (5th Cir. 1994).) [emphasis added.]
Every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Whenever any judge violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, as TWT has, then he has defrauded not only the Plaintiff involved, but has also the government. TWT is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, TWT is collecting monies for work not performed.
Removal was illegal.
Refusal to allow filing of Motion for Remand is illegal. You have ignored the legal requirement that you review the Notices of Removal. Your response was to order that my Motion for Remand presented to the Clerk will not be filed. (See Exhibit 4 – Letter dated July 5, 2011 and Exhibit 5 – Order refusing to allow the Motion for Remand to be filed.) As the Notices of Removal were improper, the cases should have been remanded. (Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Motion for Remand.)
Object to denial of protection following report of assassination plot against me.
Object that there are no valid orders in this matter.
The orders issued by you are invalid. Orders have not been signed, issued under seal, or signed by the Clerk of the Court in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691.
The word “process” at 28 U.S.C. 1691 means a court order. See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884); Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891); U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897); Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904); U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921); In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924); Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968); and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).
Object to being denied subpoenas. I needed to subpoena witnesses for the hearing. I am not able to prove everything that I need to prove without subpoenaed witnesses. It is an unthinkable violation of Constitutional rights and rights to due process to deny subpoenas. The only reason to deny subpoenas is to try to suppress the truth and railroad Windsor through another Kangaroo Court.
Object to being denied documents. A limit of 100 pages meant that I brought nothing. I had organized dozens of boxes of proof.
Object to timing of orders denying right to respond.
Object to the Court’s conspiracy with the Clerk of the Court’s Office to block filing of documents, destruction or disappearance of documents, etc.
Object to the outrageous and illegal filing restrictions and denial of absolutely valid motions and documents.
Object to the unbelievable bias. Already decided the case with no facts but mine.
Object to the illegal claim of use of judicial notice. Only facts may be admitted.
Object to refusal to recuse.
Object to the repeated violation of everything – Rules, statutes, criminal statutes.
Object to perjury in your orders and one giant case of obstruction of justice.
Object that you have found facts in this matter in favor of the Plaintiffs when the only party with sworn affidavits has been me.
Object to Judge Thrash’s absolutely false claim that this matter is not stayed.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because one of the district court's rulings (1) imposed an injunction; or (2) had the practical effect of an injunction; or (3) worked a modification of an injunction. The PROTECTIVE ORDER denies my rights and implicitly enjoins me from future exercise of rights.
Injunctions are appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(a). A court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act is an injunction. The PROTECTIVE ORDER prohibits Windsor from filing anything.
See Black's Law Dictionary 784 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "injunction" as "[a] court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act or commanding someone to undo some wrong or injury"). (Nken v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (U.S. 04/22/2009).)
(See also KPMG, LLP v. SEC, 289 F.3d 109, 124 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Lundberg v. United States, No. 09-01466 (D.D.C. 07/01/2010).)
Judge Thrash entered “a court order prohibiting someone from doing some specified act,” and that is an injunction (or a restraining order). It is immaterial that this Court did not call the prohibitions on Windsor an injunction or restraining order.
“…we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1982), which permits an immediate appeal from the issuance of a new or modified injunction. It is immaterial that the court characterized the March order as a finding of contempt. ‘an injunction does not cease to be appealable under section 1292(a) (1) merely because it is contained in an order for civil contempt.’ Szabo v. U.S. Marine Corp., 819 F.2d 714, 718 (7th Cir. 1987); see also I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., 252 U.S. App. D.C. 189, 789 F.2d 21, 23-24 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 971, 107 S. Ct. 473, 93 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1986). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over Eastern's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1).” (06/07/88 International Association v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., No. 88-7079, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.)
…preliminary injunctions are appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See, e.g., El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 482 (1999).
…we have appellate jurisdiction to review the District Court's granting or denying of a preliminary injunction. See Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). A restraining order lasting longer than 14 days generally is considered an injunction, the granting or denying of which is subject to appeal. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86 (1974); United States v. E-Gold, Ltd., 521 F.3d 411, 414-15 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (order restraining "assets pending trial and judgment" is an "injunction" under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)). (In re Any and all Funds or Other Assets, in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Account #8870792 in the Name of Tiger Eye Investments Ltd., 613 F.3d 1122 (D.C.Cir. 07/16/2010).)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), the court has jurisdiction to review "[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions...." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Although the provision is typically invoked to appeal preliminary injunctions, it can be invoked to appeal permanent injunctions that are interlocutory in nature. Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U.S. 518 (1897); see also Ty, Inc. v. Publ'ns Int'l Ltd., 292 F.3d 512, 516 (7th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 892 (2003); Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Med. & Dentistry, 867 F.2d 1455, 1464 n.7 (3d Cir. 1989); CFTC v. Preferred Capital Inv. Co., 664 F.2d 1316, 1319 n.4 (5th Cir. 1982); 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3924 (2d ed. 1996). (National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. ExpressTrak, L.L.C., 330 F.3d 523 (D.C.Cir. 06/06/2003).)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), circuit courts have jurisdiction to review "[i]nterlocutory orders . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions." Regardless of how the district court may choose to characterize its order, section 1292(a)(1) applies to any order that has "the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction," so long as it also "might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence, and . . . can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal." I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 23-24 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). [emphasis added.]
Some of the appealed orders may be considered “collateral orders.” It deals with an important issue that is completely separate from the underlying civil action, and it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment because the impact cannot be reversed, and no compensation is available for the wrongdoing.
In order to be considered a collateral order, it would have to "…resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (footnote omitted). See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (setting out the collateral order doctrine). (See also Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2000).)
To be appealable as a collateral order under Cohen, "the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Risjord, 449 U.S. at 375 (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351, 98 S. Ct. 2454 (1978)). (United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 06/08/1995).)
In this matter, Judge Thrash issued an order that had immediate and irreparable impact on me. The statute of limitations is running on claims that I need to file, and Judge Thrash
The courts of appeal have considered “irreparable harm” relevant in determining whether jurisdiction is available pursuant to the collateral order doctrine -- which the Government does not invoke -- but not pursuant to § 1291 itself. See Trout, 891 F.2d at 335; Rosenfeld, 859 F.2d at 721-22; Palmer v. City of Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316, 1318 (7th Cir. 1986).
Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 201, 204 (1848), which held an interlocutory appeal will lie from an order that "directs the property in dispute to be delivered to the complainant" and "subject[s the appellant] to irreparable injury."
In the words of Judge Duffey:
("[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."). (Bryant v. Jones, No. 1:04-cv-2462-WSD (N.D.Ga. 01/10/2007).)
I have many orders from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that provide that this civil action is stayed and hundreds from federal courts everywhere.
Failure to acknowledge this stay and follow the mandatory requirements of the law is a further evidence of the appearance of partiality of Judge Thrash. This requires recusal.
“Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judges impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." (Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).)
Failure to acknowledge this stay will be an act contrary to law and all of these orders were issued without lawful authority and were void ab initio. The disqualification motions against Judge Thrash become self-executing.
Failure to acknowledge this stay will establish a lack of jurisdiction by Judge Thrash, and as Judge Thrash knows he is operating without jurisdiction, he loses any claim of judicial immunity.
Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts face of clearly statutes valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
"When there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
Failure to acknowledge this stay will be a gross violation of the law and will be a void order. Failure to acknowledge this stay will be a gross violation of Windsor’s Constitutional rights.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction due to the Collateral Order Doctrine. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545--47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225--26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Appealed Orders have conclusively determined disputed questions; have “resolved” important issues completely separate from the merits of the action; and are unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, because there will be none!
Object to unclean hands. U.S. Attorney’s Office has committed extensive wrongdoing.
MOVE THAT JUDGE THRASH RECUSE HIMSELF. Judge Thrash has demonstrated pervasive bias and must recuse himself. A study of pro se cases that Judge Thrash has handled reveals that Judge Thrash has a proven bias against pro se plaintiffs. Judge Thrash has an “extra-judicial” bias against pro se parties.
Move that the MOTION BE DISMISSED FOR VOID OF EVIDENCE.
THIS MOTION IS A JOKE. THIS HEARING IS A SHAM .
All I am doing is attempting to stand up for my rights and the rights of every American that have been stolen by this corrupt federal judicial system.
Federal judges in Atlanta are corrupt.
An online legal dictionary defines corrupt as “having an unlawful or evil motive; especially characterized by improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another.”
This description properly defines you all.
Officers of the court have conspired to perpetrate fraud directed squarely at the integrity of the decision-making of the federal courts. Intentional misstatements of facts or omissions of material facts with knowledge of falsity, or in reckless disregard for whether statements were true or false were made again and again and again.
This civil action is a complaint that says the federal courts in Atlanta are a criminal racketeering enterporise!
It is about the most fundamental legal issues that exist: justice; honesty; fair play; equal protection; due process; Constitutional protections; the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge; the requirement that witnesses, attorneys, and judges tell the truth; the requirement that witnesses, attorneys, and judges do not violate the laws of the state and the country, abuse litigants, and commit fraud upon the courts.
This civil action is about these dishonest federal judges, a judicial system that tramples the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and the failure of the various individuals authorities established to protect citizens to do anything about this.
The United States government has committed fraud. The government told me that I would be protected by the Constitution. The government knew this was not true. I believed the government. I was not protected, and I was damaged.
The serious issues presented herein came to my attention through my experience in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“N.D.Ga.”) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”). A massive fraud upon the courts has been perpetrated by Maid of the Mist Corporation (“MOTM”), Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company Ltd (“Steamboat”), Maid’s Attorneys – Hawkins & Parnell (“H&P”) and Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, (“Mr. Anderson”), Judge Orinda D. Evans (“Judge Evans”), Judge William S. Duffey (“Judge Duffey”), you, and others.
While I do not have proof that judges have been paid to make decisions, it is one of the only logical explanations for what is taking place.
District Court judges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“N.D.Ga.”) ignore the facts; invent their own facts; ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”); ignore the law; ignore applicable case law; cite erroneous case law; commit perjury by making statements that they know to be false in their orders; violate parties’ rights in any way they can; commit obstruction of justice; and trample the Constitutional rights of litigants without a thought. They manipulate the judicial system to deprive parties such as me of their legal and Constitutional rights.
Appellate Court judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”) ignore the facts; ignore the points of error of appellants; ignore the law; ignore applicable case law; cite erroneous case law; issue short, inadequate decisions; do whatever it takes to support their friends at the District Courts; and trample the Constitutional rights of litigants.
The judicial system supports this dishonesty and illegality. The “system” denies any form of valid recourse for an aggrieved citizen.
Aggrieved citizens find it next to impossible to take legal action against judges. Judges ignore perjury. There is no law that permits an aggrieved citizen to sue over perjury. The only recourse against a N.D.Ga. federal judge is to file a complaint with the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit (“Judicial Council”). The complaints must be no more than five pages. The Judicial Council ignores valid complaints and claims there is no proof when there is plenty. The aggrieved citizens have no recourse. Since the Supreme Court isn’t really in the business of correcting errors by the lower courts, the N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit combine to have tyrannical power.
The Chief Judges of N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Julie E. Carnes (“Judge Carnes”) and Judge Joel F. Dubina (“Judge Dubina”), have ignored the wrongdoing of their fellow judges. I wrote to them to complain. I was ignored. These judges support the wrongdoing, and they actively participate in the wrongdoing.
The Judicial Council (headed by Judge Dubina) ignores the facts; ignores the law; says and does whatever it takes to protect their fellow judges; and tramples the Constitutional and legal rights of U.S. citizens. I filed a complaint against Judge Evans, and it was not pursued. The Judicial Council ignored massive dishonesty and criminal violations.
The United States of America, the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates, Assistant United States Attorney Gentry Shelnutt, the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Congressman John Conyers, the president, every member of the House and Senate, every federal appellate court judge, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Special Agent Gregory Jones ignored complaints from me about the Constitutional violations of the federal judges in N.D.Ga. and the Eleventh Circuit. Through their inaction, they have endorsed violation of the Constitutional protections granted the citizens of the United States that they are supposed to protect.
“A free society can exist only to the extent that those charged with enforcing the law respect it themselves. There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of the law, and with the colors of justice. The law enforcers may themselves offer inducements to transgress if, and only if, the persons so induced were predisposed to violate the law and the offered inducements provided only the opportunity to act on their predispositions. A society cannot long remain free if we permit the law enforcer to offer more than opportunity for transgression." (U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).) “Federal public policy, and, indeed, basic social policy, dictate that it is better to let a technical transgressor go free than to allow federal law enforcement officials to manufacture crime that entraps the unwary innocent.”
Since Federal policy is to let the “probably guilty” go free rather than risk allowing law enforcement to break the law, it should be federal policy that judges and government officials who break the law should lose any and all protection.
In an alleged effort to insulate judges from regular legal actions against them, these same judges have obliterated the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. Judges have been sanctioned to commit crimes and break laws with no concern about consequences.
This is not the story of one litigant upset with rulings in his case. This is the story of the fantasy of Constitutional rights and justice in the United States federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia.
I have massive proof of all of this, and it is in the record of the courts.
I am committed to fixing this cancer. I will spend the rest of my life working to expose you and bring you to justice.
William M. Windsor
Friday, July 15, 2011
New Finding Confirms Higher Rates of Mental Health Problems Among Adopted Children
FAMILY PRESERVATION ADVOCACY: New Finding Confirms Higher Rates of Mental Health Problems Among Adopted Children
The report is: "America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2011." A link to the report is provided here, in: The Truth About Adoption: All You Need Is Love, And A Safety Net.
The section on adoption collected data from: The American Community Survey, a large annual survey of the U.S. population, providing estimates of a variety of groups and their characteristics; the National Survey of Children’s Health survey of households with a focal child age of 0–17 about their children’s physical, emotional, and behavioral health and their experiences with the health care system; and The National Survey of Adoptive Parents.
The section begins with these words:
"Because children develop best in the context of families, adoptive families are sought for children whose birth families cannot care for them." CANNOT! That does not extend to pressuring young girls that it is best for them to seek two parents for their child who may or may not remained a two-parent family it does not say we should encourage young women to pursue further education or a career in favor of parenting their own children.
It goes on to say: "Yet cchildren who are adopted, particularly those adopted beyond the first months of life, experience disruptions in parenting that can have longstanding implications for their development and well-being. Even children adopted as infants face challenges with identity development and issues of loss and grief regarding birth parents."
As quoted here, adopted children have higher rates of mental health problems than all other children, according to a federal report on the health and well-being of U.S. children released on Thursday.
About 2.5 percent of U.S. children are adopted, but the National Institutes of Health report found the disruption that affects some children who are adopted after the first month of their lives may have long-term effects.
While it addresses learning disabilities behavioral problems it still relates these issues to fetal exposure to alcohol and other substances, or early abuse or neglect at the hands of their original parents or institutions. And it is not not confirming the kind of anecdotal data we know: that adoptees are over-represented in all mental health and youth facilities - some of which see nearly a 50% adopted clientele percentage. It does not address the increased rate in suicide we see in adoptees, although it is adoption is known to be a risk factor for suicide.
The report is: "America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2011." A link to the report is provided here, in: The Truth About Adoption: All You Need Is Love, And A Safety Net.
The section on adoption collected data from: The American Community Survey, a large annual survey of the U.S. population, providing estimates of a variety of groups and their characteristics; the National Survey of Children’s Health survey of households with a focal child age of 0–17 about their children’s physical, emotional, and behavioral health and their experiences with the health care system; and The National Survey of Adoptive Parents.
The section begins with these words:
"Because children develop best in the context of families, adoptive families are sought for children whose birth families cannot care for them." CANNOT! That does not extend to pressuring young girls that it is best for them to seek two parents for their child who may or may not remained a two-parent family it does not say we should encourage young women to pursue further education or a career in favor of parenting their own children.
It goes on to say: "Yet cchildren who are adopted, particularly those adopted beyond the first months of life, experience disruptions in parenting that can have longstanding implications for their development and well-being. Even children adopted as infants face challenges with identity development and issues of loss and grief regarding birth parents."
As quoted here, adopted children have higher rates of mental health problems than all other children, according to a federal report on the health and well-being of U.S. children released on Thursday.
About 2.5 percent of U.S. children are adopted, but the National Institutes of Health report found the disruption that affects some children who are adopted after the first month of their lives may have long-term effects.
While it addresses learning disabilities behavioral problems it still relates these issues to fetal exposure to alcohol and other substances, or early abuse or neglect at the hands of their original parents or institutions. And it is not not confirming the kind of anecdotal data we know: that adoptees are over-represented in all mental health and youth facilities - some of which see nearly a 50% adopted clientele percentage. It does not address the increased rate in suicide we see in adoptees, although it is adoption is known to be a risk factor for suicide.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)