Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us

Folks this is a thread I don't think we have. Maybe this should be made a sticky thread. So hopefully someone thinking they'll get help won't use the bad one's if at all possible.

Maybe for the bad judges they'll know just to find a CRIMINAL LAWYER. If any of them care to address me I'm more than ready willing and able.

Judge Barry Schermer- Has let aka Argent/Ameriquest/Citi or 10 of different companies under Citi name foreclose on a home knowing they didn't show proper documentation.

Judge Schermer- Also let the attys off on filing what they knew to be a false proof of claim to be paid to begin with. Which is a 500,000 penalty or 5 yrs in jail or both.

Atty Bryan Voss who by the way also works for a chp 7 trustee did NOTHING in my families best interest except succeed the objection on the 2nd lien holder for their lift of stay for the false proof of claim to be paid.

Afterwards he was dissuaded in going further. From the sound of what put in writing there was NO WAY thatJudge Schermer BELIEVED anything we could say. Therefore, even though my atty sent the Chp 13 Trustee A letter about doing something he DID NOTHING.

THEN interesting enough my thought is this: If their being so hard on me and I'm bringing them someone with $150,000 per mnth to $50m per mnth to buy product and they don't know how to do proper business to save their livelihoods what do you want me to do?

So after banko court I did the Counterclaim/Refusal for Cause Process--
Then I put in a request for a temporary restraining order request...This was DENIED rather quickly by Judge Carol E. Jackson. This was still before the foreclosure of MY OWN HOME....Next I put in a motion to vacate her DENIAL of my TRO.

It then took her TWO MONTHS to respond. In which again she DENIED ME MY RIGHTS...Claimed my MTV- Summarily was Frivolous and DENIED...then two months later she had a change of heart. I think she must of realized what I told her and What The Hell I Really Do Know or else she wouldn't of Recused...

That or she was scared how they would come down on her Regarding Schermer (Judge Jackson seems like she could be a good Judge my feeling). I understand they stick up for the other one. This I do Understand. Then I FEEL PLEASE UNDERSTAND I'm sticking up for EVERY-1 of Us HOMEOWNERS WHEN I SPEAK !!!

Judge Jackson I believe knows what I put into writing is the TRUTH the WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH or else I wouldn't of gotten a chance at a whole new trial as well. But by Recusing then giving a new trial the next judge did the same thing. This was judge Charles Shaw then he sent on to a new judge as well. How many other judges were on Magistrates Moodys write up? Well they still haven't addressed the ISSUE....

Which, is that I can't work for people who attempt to make me be a CORRUPT INDIVIDUAL. That Corrupt Corporations need to remove CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS AND GET BACK TO THE RULES OF TRUTH AND HONESTY. That most AMERICANS REFUSE TO  believe US IS ALARMING. It really makes you wonder what is next.

The Judges are so Biased and Impartial it's not funny. The fact that Judge Jackson attempted to me to change the outcome should of spoke volumes. The same for Judge Shaw. What I can't get an answer on as well is this.

When Jackson and Shaw Recused if my case to them LACKED JURISDICTION shouldn't they of used this as a COP OUT to begin with vs Recusing? That or they wanted me to get an Appeal in to get the Orders Vacated vs them doing it since their in the same Dist Court Circuit as Schermer?

Here's an interesting ??? as well...Maybe besides my own case.... If they've determined the Judge on the Energy Company should of Recused and didn't what happens to the judgement for 50m he overturned? Anyone know?

Just right outside St. Louis MO Folks,

Quote 0 0
Top Gun:

We all feel your pain and frustration!!! 

People don't even realize this is happening to them, their coworkers, their neighbors...  It's time to get out and help them see the truth!

The system is trying to scare us into being quiet.  There are a few that are outspoken but more are joining in.  The harder we fight, the more injustice we will see.  We can't let this stop us though.  We must stand together and stay strong!!!

Quote 0 0
at the top of this list  :

EKONOMIDES  attorney  clearwater bch , florida - pinellas county

the only practice he preaches is how to screw the client  out of their hard earn money .

you should have listened to papa  .  papa never screwed anybody like the way you do .  out of their money .
Quote 0 0
CA Attorney- Stephen F. Dial Esq - Retained as counsel back in July of 2008 but fiddled his thumbs collecting retainer fees waited until the day before Trustee's Sale to file suit, ended up basically siding with opposing counsel, tried to get plaintiff to dismiss suit & sign a release of all claims known & unknown as well as an agreement to allow lender to foreclose without objection and submit to an unlawful detainer action without objection. Plaintiff was persuaded to decline on the offer despite Mr. Dials persistence, Mr. Dial repeatedly ignored plaintiffs requests on how he should proceed with the case remained on as counsel until the three year statute of limitations for TILA had run out then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel....

CACD Judge- Cormac J Carney -Granted Mr. Dial's withdrawal then 2 days later granted opposing counsel's proposed order on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim without leave to file an amended complaint with prejudice. Even though 2 months prior to this judge Carney granted bank of America's motion for the same against Ms. Edelman with leave to file an amended complaint. Keep in mind suit was filed March 9 2009 & he let them wait until June before they responded which is in conflict with his procedures he has listed on the cacd website but only allowed plaintiff 2 days before ruling on the motion. You know I don't even think the Plaintiff was properly notified about the hearing.....
Quote 0 0
Here's more info coming out regarding the Massey Case....and Recusals.....

Caperton: Answers to the Chief Justice’s “Twenty Questions” Times Two

Posted by kswisher on Monday, June, 15, 2009

In Caperton, Chief Justice Roberts dismissed the majority’s “probability of bias” test, calling it a “cure . . . worse than the disease.”  He believes that the “Court’s new ‘rule’ provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required,” which ”will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be,” which in the end, ”will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.”  His consequence connector seems miscalibrated.  It is exceedingly odd to claim that remedying this “extreme case” — one in which every justice, and the polled public, seem to agree bruises the perception of impartiality – will “erode public confidence in judicial impartiality.”  As an umpire who merely calls balls and strikes, perhaps the Chief Justice needs to get back in the game and out of the policy incubator.  His dissent is notable, but not because of these loose causal connections involving hypothetical challenges, but because it has attracted significant attention through the casting of forty questions — forty questions that the majority’s analysis allegedly cannot answer.  While some commentators have hailed the questions as an indication of infirmities in the majority’s analysis (e.g., “bad facts make bad law”), I respectfully dissent from the dissent; every question, save one or two, can be answered (and the ones that cannot seem to reflect more poorly on the questioner’s drafting than the majority’s analysis).  As a preliminary matter, I note again that an umpire who merely calls balls and strikes should be less concerned with questions not before the court, and indeed, every case could spawn a multitude of forward-looking questions not raised by the facts at hand, but let’s play the game these objections notwithstanding.  Proposed answers are in bold following the applicable questions. 

1. How much money is too much money? What level of contribution or expenditure gives rise to a “probability of bias”?  Without supplying any facts, this question should be answered with the majority’s test: “When a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”  In other words, “Due process requires an objective inquiry into whether the contributor’s influence on the election under all the circumstances ‘would offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.’”

2. How do we determine whether a given expenditure is “disproportionate”?  See answer to question 1.  Disproportionate to whatThe majority answered this one as well: “in comparison to the total amount contributed to the campaign, as well as the total amount spent in the election.”

3. Are independent, non-coordinated expenditures treated the same as direct contributions to a candidate’s campaign?  No, the latter support is worse—the influence is more direct.  What about contributions to independent outside groups supporting a candidate?  The question must be initially answered with a question: What “independent outside groups”?  But as general matter, yes, that the contributions were to some “independent outside groups” should be considered and could in the abstract be mitigating. 

4. Does it matter whether the litigant has contributed to other candidates or made large expenditures in connection with other elections?  Probably not (unless the other contributions and/or expenditures were to the judge’s opponent in the same race – a rather unlikely and self-defeating scenario). 

5. Does the amount at issue in the case matter?  It could.  What if this case were an employment dispute with only $10,000 at stake?  It could, if the case was so patently miniscule to the supporter as not to risk offending him/her/it no matter what the disposition.  If the question is cast toward the other side’s perspective, however, the amount in dispute is irrelevant—every litigant is entitled to a fair trial before a fair judge.  What if the plaintiffs only sought non-monetary relief such as an injunction or declaratory judgment?  No, the form of relief sought is generally irrelevant. 

6. Does the analysis change depending on whether the judge whose disqualification is sought sits on a trial court, appeals court, or state supreme court?  No. 

7. How long does the probability of bias last? So long as support matters to holding the office and so long as a strong debt of gratitude lasts.  Does the probability of bias diminish over time as the election recedes?  Probably, but it depends primarily on his next question:  Does it matter whether the judge plans to run for reelection?  Yes.  

8. What if the “disproportionately” large expenditure is made by an industry association, trade union, physicians’ group, or the plaintiffs’ bar?  Same analysis as above.  Must the judge recuse in all cases that affect the association’s interests?  Surely yes with respect to the pending case, but perhaps yes with respect to (unspecified) others as well. Must the judge recuse in all cases in which a party or lawyer is a member of that group?  Not all, but the question does not allow for anything beyond speculation.  Does it matter how much the litigant contributed to the association?  Yes, it matters.    

9. What if the case involves a social or ideological issue rather than a financial one?  Assuming it does, what is the question?  Must a judge recuse from cases involving, say, abortion rights if he has received “disproportionate” support from individuals who feel strongly about either side of that issue?  Is the “support” financial?  If yes, then yes.  If the supporter wants to help elect judges who are “tough on crime,” must the judge recuse in all criminal cases?  Of course, we need to know whether the supporter had a particular case pending in which she had a multi-million dollar interest.  If not, then generally no, recusal would not be required in all criminal cases, although an argument can be advanced forcefully that the Constitution is violated when you combine judicial elections with criminal cases, particularly in situations in which the judge’s influential supporters demand toughness on crime and would withhold support in its absence.   

10. What if the candidate draws “disproportionate” support from a particular racial, religious, ethnic, or other group, and the case involves an issue of particular importance to that group?  This question is void for vagueness.   

11. What if the supporter is not a party to the pending or imminent case, but his interests will be affected by the decision?  Does the Court’s analysis apply if the supporter “chooses the judge” not in his case, but in someone else’s?  If the judge would probably be concerned about the effect of the pending case on his supporter (or the supporter would probably be concerned about the judge’s fidelity), then probably yes. 

12. What if the case implicates a regulatory issue that is of great importance to the party making the expenditures, even though he has no direct financial interest in the outcome (e.g., a facial challenge to an agency rulemaking or a suit seeking to limit an agency’s jurisdiction)?  The parenthetical example seems contradictory – there certainly could be a strong financial interest motivating the facial challenge.  But assuming there is not, we would be dealing with more attenuated corrupting forces.    

13. Must the judge’s vote be outcome determinative in order for his non-recusal to constitute a due process violation?  No.   

14. Does the due process analysis consider the underlying merits of the suit?  Does it matter whether the decision is clearly right (or wrong) as a matter of state law?  No (although it could be circumstantial evidence of an actually biased judge). 

15. What if a lower court decision in favor of the supporter is affirmed on the merits on appeal, by a panel with no “debt of gratitude” to the supporter?  Does that “moot” the due process claim?  No.  Constitutionally unbiased judges are required at every level. 

16. What if the judge voted against the supporter in many other cases?  Yes, it could matter, as it could show (among other things) no debt of gratitude or expectation of future support.   

17. What if the judge disagrees with the supporter’s message or tactics? What if the judge expressly disclaims the support of this person?  Yes, that could matter.

18. Should we assume that elected judges feel a “debt of hostility” towards major opponents of their candidacies?  Yes, although the term “hostility” is a bit loaded.  Must the judge recuse in cases involving individuals or groups who spent large amounts of money trying unsuccessfully to defeat him?  Possibly, but the question lacks sufficient circumstances.

19. If there is independent review of a judge’s recusal decision, e.g., by a panel of other judges, does this completely foreclose a due process claim?  Although independent review should be the procedure adopted for all, or virtually all, motions to disqualify, the commendable procedure does not eliminate the due process inquiry.  For example, these “independent” judges could be members of the same court and thus hesitant to disqualify their colleague, friend, and neighbor.  On a more basic level, a state procedure cannot trump the Constitution.

20. Does a debt of gratitude for endorsements by newspapers, interest groups, politicians, or celebrities also give rise to a constitutionally unacceptable probability of bias?  They could.  How would we measure whether such support is disproportionate?   Same or similar methods and tests. 

21. Does close personal friendship between a judge and a party or lawyer now give rise to a probability of bias?  Arguably yes, and as a practical matter, it always has (although it should be noted that many good judges bend over backwards to avoid actual bias in such cases).   

22. Does it matter whether the campaign expenditures come from a party or the party’s attorney?  Yes, if the latter, the influences are more attenuated. If from a lawyer, must the judge recuse in every case involving that attorney?  If the attorney is to the judge as Blankenship was to Justice Benjamin, then yes.   

23. Does what is unconstitutional vary from State to State?  Never.  What if particular States have a history of expensive judicial elections? Whether and in what form the state holds judicial elections matter, but their overall expensiveness likely would not matter.  The test would be the same, just with fewer zeros after the applicable numbers.    

24. Under the majority’s “objective” test, do we analyze the due process issue through the lens of a reasonable person, a reasonable lawyer, or a reasonable judge?  This is perhaps the first “good” question.  In the case, however, all three actors would come to the same conclusion—recusal.  As a general matter and as a matter of substantive recusal law, the actor probably should be the reasonable judge.   

25. What role does causation play in this analysis? The Court sends conflicting signals on this point. The majority asserts that “[w]hether Blankenship’s campaign contributions were a necessary and sufficient cause of Benjamin’s victory is not the proper inquiry.”  But elsewhere in the opinion, the majority considers “the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election,” ante, at 14, and whether the litigant has been able to “choos[e] the judge in his own cause,” ante, at 16.  Yes, causation matters, but it need not be the sole, isolated cause of victory.  If causation is a pertinent factor, how do we know whether the contribution or expenditure had any effect on the outcome of the election?  It should not be terribly difficult—election success has been analyzed (often correctly) for a long time.  Moreover, as the majority noted, the task becomes easier once we acknowledge that we are dealing with probabilities, not actualities.  What if the judge won in a landslide?  Yes, that matters.  What if the judge won primarily because of his opponent’s missteps?  Yes, that matters as well.   

26. Is the due process analysis less probing for incumbent judges—who typically have a great advantage in elections—than for challengers?  No, it is not less probing, but such a “great advantage” should be considered wherever actually applicable. 

27. How final must the pending case be with respect to the contributor’s interest? What if, for example, the only issue on appeal is whether the court should certify a class of plaintiffs? Is recusal required just as if the issue in the pending case were ultimate liability?  Absolutely.

28. Which cases are implicated by this doctrine? Must the case be pending at the time of the election?  No, it must be reasonably likely to be brought.  Reasonably likely to be brought?  What about an important but unanticipated case filed shortly after the election?  If it is truly “unanticipated,” then the litigant certainly did not “choose” the judge in her own case.  This fact alone, however, would not be dispositive.   

29. When do we impute a probability of bias from one party to another?  Does a contribution from a corporation get imputed to its executives, and vice-versa?  By casting the legal fictions aside, the answer will become clear or clearer.   And obviously, in light of the Court’s holding, imputation can occur from a chief executive to the corporation.  Does a contribution or expenditure by one family member get imputed to other family members?  Probably, but not necessarily.   

30. What if the election is nonpartisan? It could matter, but without facts, it is unclear.  What if the election is just a yes-or-no vote about whether to retain an incumbent?  For anyone familiar with retention elections, this fact definitely matters.  For one, almost all judges up for retention are retained.  Moreover, it is much harder to “choose” your judge (save your one vote) at the retention election stage – it is much easier (but still difficult) to oust a judge.  

31. What type of support is disqualifying? What if the supporter’s expenditures are used to fund voter registration or get-out-the-vote efforts rather than television advertisements?  This twist could matter.  Among other factors, one would need to look at the causal link between these activities and electoral success and the expectation of future support.   

32. Are contributions or expenditures in connection with a primary aggregated with those in the general election?  Yes.  What if the contributor supported a different candidate in the primary? Does that dilute the debt of gratitude?  Perhaps slightly. 

33. What procedures must be followed to challenge a state judge’s failure to recuse? May Caperton claims only be raised on direct review?  A strong candidate for an interlocutory appeal exception.  Or may such claims also be brought in federal district court under 42 U. S. C. §1983, which allows a person deprived of a federal right by a state official to sue for damages?  Perhaps, but it seems unlikely that pecuniary “damages” would be permitted.  If §1983 claims are available, who are the proper defendants? The judge? Yes.  The whole court?  Probably not.  The clerk of court?  Probably not.

34. What about state-court cases that are already closed? Can the losing parties in those cases now seek collateral relief in federal district court under §1983?  Perhaps.  What statutes of limitation should be applied to such suits?  The “statute of limitations” should not be an immediate issue—as Tuesday would have been the first day on which it should start to run.   

35. What is the proper remedy? After a successful Caperton motion, must the parties start from scratch before the lower courts?  Yes (unless the now-disqualified judge sat at the appellate level).  Is any part of the lower court judgment retained?  No. 

36. Does a litigant waive his due process claim if he waits until after decision to raise it? Probably (particularly in this instance—when the constitutional-rights waiver is not inadvertent, but instead a tactical decision that could lead to, among other things, wasted judicial proceedings).  Or would the claim only be ripe after decision, when the judge’s actions or vote suggest a probability of bias?  No. 

37. Are the parties entitled to discovery with respect to the judge’s recusal decision?  They should be so entitled at least with respect to facially meritorious claims.

38. If a judge erroneously fails to recuse, do we apply harmless-error review?  This is the second or third good question out of forty.  Just a prediction, but courts will probably say “yes.”

39. Does the judge get to respond to the allegation that he is probably biased, or is his reputation solely in the hands of the parties to the case?  The judge gets to respond in his ruling on the disqualification motion (or sua sponte in his recusal ruling).  

40. What if the parties settle a Caperton claim as part of a broader settlement of the case? Does that leave the judge with no way to salvage his reputation?  Once the case is no longer pending, the judge could speak about the merits of the Caperton claim.  The concern misses the mark a bit: One of the reasons these “perception”- or “appearance”-based tests have arisen is to avoid the ugly impact of implying, calling, and proving the judge actually biased.  The Caperton-disqualified judge can still say – as has Justice Benjamin following the Supreme Court’s decision – that he was not actually biased.

* * *

Quote 0 0
Judge Journal

Judge Dorothy Vaccaro
Total Surveys (4) A (4.51) All Survey Comments (4)
Forum Posts
2009-05-27 Guest Pro se Attorneys  No Rules in Florida

2009-05-27 Guest Pro se Attorneys  No Rules in Florida

2009-05-29 Guest Re: Pro se Attorneys Looks like the leaders of the 15th judicial crime syndicate in a photo line-up.They make their own rules up as they go along. ... [more]

Quote 0 0
To Funny....

I guess this is the corrupt attorneys doing the Curyly shuffle before they STEAL YOUR HOME...

Pro se Attorneys

 No Rules in Florida

Quote 0 0
Thanks for the laugh!!!!

Quote 0 0
Home->Main Forum->State and Other Courts->Florida->Judiciary->Judicial Circuits->Sixth Judicial Circuit->Counties->All County Judges->Judge Dorothy Vaccaro

    Printable version

Survey Results for Judge Dorothy Vaccaro 1

All grades/scores and comments are the opinions of the survey respondent.
Back to Overall Results ... « Skip [1] 2 3 4

Overall: 2
C(2.13) out of 1 surveys
Comments (1)
Made on: 2007-04-26
Made by: Other


Do you approve of this judge's overall performance?

Yes: 0 No: 1

This respondent did not approve of this judge.

Comments made by respondent:
Quote 0 0
This is a story that we need to spread far and wide:

July 15, 2011….Atlanta, Georgia
William M. Windsor has been BANNED from filing any lawsuit anywhere in America.  This action was taken against him because he has filed lawsuits against federal judges, and they are determined to get Windsor any way they can.
Pictures don't usually do people "justice," but so-called judge Thomas Woodrow Thrash actually looks like this. (see ; 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 have 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 the online article, I added my script that I spoke from.  As soon as I get the transcript, I will post it there.

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 probably wouldn't 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 activists 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 Kangaroo Court.  I hope several of the observers will write their observations for us to read, because it was something to see. 

Here’s what Jeff Goolsby wrote to me:
“It was clear that Judge Thomas W. Thrash had reached a decision before the hearing began.  He did not do anything that would have been necessary to compose and prepare his order based on Mr. Windsor’s presentation.  Immediately he announced his decision and clearly read from a previously prepared document.  I was seated on the far right side of the courtroom and it was easy to see what he was doing.  It appeared to me that the hearing was for the purpose of damage to Windsor.
“It was a clear absolute appearance of bias, and he did commit bias against Mr. Windsor, which follows his usual handling of pro se plaintiff lawsuits based on his reputation of ruling against every pro se plaintiff totaling 138 cases.
“All of the things that Mr. Windsor recounted that Judge Thrash had done to him appeared typical and indicates that Judge Thrash should be impeached and removed from office for violation of his oath of office and law violations.”

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 Judge Thrash’s 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.

All the best,
Bill Windsor
Quote 0 0
While I agree a Pro Se litigant has a more difficult time in court, this is usually because the legal system is very complex.  A Pro Se litigant is held to the same standard as an attorney and any deficiencies in pleadings or procedures can be fatal to any action. 

Legal Notice

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.  

 This guy is really a nut.  Maybe he forgot his medication. 


William M. Windsor Targeted for Assassination by U.S. Government

  • PDF


William M. Windsor was informed today by a reliable source that he may be targeted for assassination by the U.S. Government.  Windsor is an activist seeking to stop government and judicial corruption.


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Lawlessness said:

Ladies and gentlemen, our federal judiciary is hopelessly corrupt.  They are criminals.

On balance, I have found the Federal bench to be singularly competent and to exhibit a high level of integrity.

In my study of the Ohio Federal dismissal, there was a solid core of U.S. District Court Judges who were thoughtfully and judiciously applying the law and dismissing foreclosure cases in which the defendant hadn't even made an appearance.

Contrast that with the sketch of judicial mischief set forth in Matt Taibbi's exposition on the Florida "Rocket Docket" bench.

One interesting thing that I noted in 2007 and 2008 was that while Ohio U.S. District Court judges appointed by Republican Presidents, including President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, were busy applying the law and dismissing cases, those judges appointed by President Bill Clinton continued granting foreclosures and taking people's homes on essentially the same evidence.  I documented this in several older Forum posts.  This is certainly some evidence that President Clinton appointed corrupt people to the bench.

Of course, it was President Clinton's corrupt cronies who brought about the subprime bubble and the collapse, so I suppose that this is unsurprising.


While I have observed a rather start animus towards pro se litigants by the state court judges I have encountered, I have also noted that when the judge discovers that the litigant is building a solid appeal and is assiduously following the rule that the judge begins to behave


Rather than celebrate paranoid nutcases like William Windsor, we need to focus on getting our arguments RIGHT!  This is certainly not a person to emulate or celebrate.
Quote 0 0

The Florida Bar Speaks- Lawyers Must Disclose “Faulty” Paperwork.
July 17th, 2011 · · Foreclosure
You really must read the entire release, and especially the statements from the member of the Bar that reviewed the Opinion…..the implications here are quite huge….

FLORIDA BAR!OpenDocument

Quote 0 0
Ann wrote:

The Florida Bar Speaks- Lawyers Must Disclose “Faulty” Paperwork.
July 17th, 2011 · · Foreclosure
You really must read the entire release, and especially the statements from the member of the Bar that reviewed the Opinion…..the implications here are quite huge….

FLORIDA BAR!OpenDocument

I still wonder where I should file my lawsuit; i.e., Federal or State court.    I read so many bad things about both.    Does anyone have an opinion where the pro se plantiff gets a fair shake?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...