What's the difference between a masked, gun-toting criminal and a federal judge in Atlanta?
The judges don't wear masks.
Atlanta's federal courts are filled with corruption. I always knew there were problems, but I thought it was just dishonest lawyers. I never dreamed that federal judges are corrupt and routinely commit crimes because they have the power to do anything they want.
I have accused nine federal judges in Atlanta of corruption or dishonesty. From my personal experience, these judges ignore the law, ignore the facts, and commit criminal acts while hiding behind their judicial robes and the "judicial immunity" that the judges have given themselves over the years.
The following has been filed with The United States Supreme Court:
District Court Judge Orinda D. Evans ("Judge Evans"), several attorneys, and five people lied again and again and again and cost Alcatraz Media, LLC and Alcatraz Media, Inc. (jointly "Alcatraz") and me a fortune in legal fees and litigation expenses and much more.
Maid of the Mist Corporation and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company Limited (jointly "Plaintiffs" or "Maid") filed suit in August 2005 against Alcatraz Media, LLC, Alcatraz Media, Inc., and William M. Windsor (jointly "Defendants"). [This case is Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE.]
Four managers of Maid of the Mist committed hundreds of counts of perjury. These managers lied repeatedly under oath and conspired to commit fraud against the Defendants. This lawsuit ("MIST-1") began with a sworn Verified Complaint that consisted of perjured testimony by the President of Maid, Christopher Glynn (â€œGlynnâ€). I have detailed under oath that as many as 46 of the 50 paragraphs were false or incorrect and/or not based upon the personal knowledge of Glynn as he swore.
The lies, false sworn pleadings, false pleadings, and discovery abuse continued throughout MIST-1. This deprived the Defendants of any opportunity for a fair trial. The dishonesty of Maid and Plaintiffs' attorneys was compounded by the "mistakes" of Judge Evans, who decided on day one that she was going to find in favor of Maid, withheld documents from the Defendants, violated the legal rights of Alcatraz and me by ignoring perjury and a massive fraud upon the court, denying the most basic discovery, and acting without the impartiality required of a judge.
Maid of the Mist's managers and primary attorney, Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, lied many hundreds of times. (MIST-1 Doc. 377 -- Exhibits 1-8, 10-21 lists each false statement and provides citations to the proof of the falsities.)
Maid's attorneys have violated the State Bar of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and have committed many violations of their oaths.
Maid of the Mist and their attorneys used a deliberately planned unconscionable scheme to fraudulently subvert the integrity of the judicial process. Proof of the unconscionable scheme, and of its complete success to date, is conclusive in the Docket of Civil Action 1:06-CV-0714-ODE ("MIST-1").
Maid of the Mist's attorneys have filed false sworn pleadings, have filed false pleadings, have filed improper pleadings, have filed allegations and other factual contentions that lack evidentiary support, have obstructed justice, have suborned perjury, and have violated numerous criminal statutes.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have knowingly had their client verify false pleadings. Plaintiffs' attorneys have committed perjury. Plaintiffs' attorneys have suborned perjury.
Maid of the Mist's attorneys established a pattern and practice of lies, multiple false sworn statements in multiple false sworn affidavits by multiple people, false sworn testimony at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, in their depositions, and more. These were material false statements.
Maid of the Mist's attorneys concealed documents, altered documents, withheld documents, and more as part of the scheme.
Statements were knowingly and deliberately falsified to serve the improper needs of Maid of the Mist's attorneys, to inflict pain, suffering, and financial loss on Alcatraz and me.
The many issues of professional misconduct are detailed in MIST-1 Docket #474 and Dec #25 (MIST-1 Docket #462).
All of this should subject Maid of the Mist's attorneys (Carl Hugo Anderson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young, Phillips Lytle, Marc W. Brown, and others) to professional discipline for knowingly making false statements of fact; assisting a client in illegal or fraudulent conduct; engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on the attorneys' fitness to practice law.
I filed motions for sanctions against Maid of the Mist's attorneys that provide additional details of attorney misconduct. [MIST-1 Docket #363 and 364]. But Judge Evans ignored it all. She never allowed it to be discussed, and she refused repeated motions for hearings and conferences.
Judges are supposed to tell the truth at all times, but Judge Evans has made false statements routinely.
Judge Evans has violated my Constitutional and civil rights under color of law and has denied due process.
Judge Evans has not demonstrated the impartiality required of a judge. Judge Evans has demonstrated a personal bias in favor of Maid of the Mist and a prejudice against Alcatraz and me.
The improper acts of Judge Evans were motivated by unknown extrajudicial factors. The record shows that Judge Evans was against Alcatraz and me from the minute she became involved in MIST-1.
Judge Evans established a fixed view about substantive pending trial matters. Judge Evans issued a Temporary Restraining Order in March 2006 and required a bond that was less than 1.5% of the amount underestimated by Alcatraz and me. The bond was $5,000, and the loss by Alcatraz and me has beenn over 100 times that.
Judge Evans spoke at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing in April 2006 with a clearly fixed view about substantive pending trial matters. Judge Evans indicated to me that she maintained a position throughout this proceeding that Alcataz and I were wrong and that their case did not matter. Judge Evans called it a "simple case" in complete disregard for the facts, the law, and the counterclaim of Alcatraz.
Judge Evans treated Alcatraz and me in a hostile manner.
Denying Alcatraz and me access to important records, evidence, and witnesses, as Judge Evans did, is a violation of Equal Protection.
Judge Evans made as many as 200 false statements in the Preliminary Injunction Order in May 2006 and Summary Judgment Order in August 2007. Proof of the false statements in the orders has been documented in MIST-1 Docket #362 and 377 with citations to Maid's witnesses proving that many statements are false.
These were material false statements made under the Judge's oath of office in a federal proceeding. Judge Evans knew statements that she made were false because she claimed statements were evidence before the Court, and that was clearly not true. Furthermore, Judge Evans was on notice that the Summary Judgment Order statements were false because the Petitioner informed her on February 2, 2007. [MIST-1 Docket #174, P 23: 24-25, P 24: 1-7, P 34: 4-7, P 44: 6-8.]
I began efforts to reopen the case in April 2009. In four years, Judge Evans has never granted me a single conference or hearing. Never.
Pervasive bias continued in 2009 as was shown on May 22, 2009 in an order from Judge Evans wherein she falsely claims "the issues of law and fact in this case ultimately were not difficult." (Pet. App. 8.) Judge Evans ignored the facts and the law. She issued an injunction to stop Alcatraz and me from a business that we are licensed to operate by the State of Georgia wrongly claiming the business is illegal.
Judge Evans ignored everything in MIST-1 from May until December 22, 2009 when she issued an order denying all pending motions en masse and enjoining me from filing. Several appeals are pending at the Eleventh Circuit, and several petitions are yet to be submitted to the United States Supreme Court.
Alcatraz and I are entitled under the Fifth Amendment to the "absolute right" to an impartial tribunal. The Fifth Amendment is supposed to act as a limitation upon the exercise of judicial power -- to wit, justices may not sit as adjudicators in cases in which they have an interest. But by adjudicating pending motions and a Complaint of Professional Misconduct in MIST-1, Judge Evans violated my right to an impartial tribunal.
Judge Evans ignored my claims of hundreds of counts of perjury, Rule 11 violations, and subornation of perjury by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys. Judge Evans issued orders and the summary judgment based upon testimony that she was told was perjured. Judge Evans refused to give proper consideration to the merits of my sworn statements based upon my personal knowledge and made under penalty of perjury before a notary in MIST-1.
Maid of the Mist has not attempted to dispute the perjury with a single solitary affidavit. This is because Maid of the Mist cannot dispute the uncontroverted facts.
Judge Evans has committed obstruction of justice. By withholding material evidence that should have been provided to Alcatraz and me. Judge Evans received two contracts for an in camera inspection in February 2007. Judge Evans claimed the contracts were not relevant to the case, but that was false.
Alcatraz and I finally obtained the contracts through a Freedom of Information request in 2009, so I know that the contracts contained extremely important information. I have reason to believe that Maid of the Mist filed bogus documents with Judge Evans. These documents are referenced in MIST-1 Docket #168, and the production requirement is noted in MIST-1 Docket # 174 - Hearing of February 2, 2007, P 61-62. (See First Declaration of William M. Windsor (Dec #1, ¶¶ 15-32) and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto. [MIST-1 Docket #361].) Judge Evans refused to produce these documents from a subpoena, and she denied a motion to lift the seal with no justification whatsoever. These documents will prove that MIST-1 should be reopened. These documents will prove fraud. I have no way to get the documents because Judge Evans is concealing them.
Alcatraz and I were denied the most basic discovery -- never even given the names and contact information for employee witnesses. Judge Evans denied us the ability to take deposition testimony of any of the people directly involved with customers or any customers. Judge Evans denied us the time needed to obtain the depositions of Canadian employees of Maid who were important to our case.
Judge Evans repeatedly denied discovery requests that were essential to our defense and in support of our case. Discovery Abuse is detailed in Exhibit 16 to the Second Declaration of William M. Windsor ("Dec #2") [MIST-1 Docket #361]. Judge Evans denied me, a pro se party, the ability to conduct a 30(b)(6) examination of Maid Corporation. [MIST-1 Docket # 174, P59: 18-21.]
It is hard to imagine that Judge Evans is incompetent as I believe her actions in this case may indicate. I do not know if anyone else is responsible in part for that dishonesty, but I feel the appropriate authorities should investigate. At this point, I am left with the feeling that it is likely that the judge was paid off by someone to rule as she did. There is no other "logical" explanation for her actions.
Maid of the Mist's attorneys were either the luckiest attorneys in the world to find such a willing accomplice in Judge Evans -- or they had reason to believe that Judge Evans would participate in their scheme. Judge Evans acted as if she was on their payroll.
Judge Evans routinely ignored the facts and the law and even invented her own facts.
Judge Evans committed many violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct.
Judge Evans made rulings in MIST-1 that are contrary to the law. She issued a preliminary injunction based upon an argument presented after the preliminary injunction was long over. She issued a preliminary injunction claiming tortious interference based on approximately $100 in damages that the Defendants proved were bogus with sworn affidavits from the customers involved. She denied the Defendants any ability to obtain the names of witnesses that they needed to depose. She granted a summary judgment for Maid of the Mist on the key issue in the case -- an oral agreement for six months in 2005 -- based upon the following: Maid of the Mist testified that its president was not aware of an agreement with Alcatraz. There was no other testimony from Maid of the Mist other than this one statement in the Verified Complaint! Alcatraz provided a Verified Answer, Alcatraz and I filed multiple sworn affidavits and gave extensive deposition testimony detailing the exact terms of the oral agreement from the people who made the oral agreement with Maid of the Mist. This clearly created a fact issue, but Judge Evans invented facts that weren't true and weren't in the record and claimed her facts trumped our sworn testimony. As there was a contract, there was no tortious interference, and Alcatraz and I should have won the case.
Detailed background facts regarding the professional misconduct of Judge Evans are provided in Dec #23 -- MIST-1 Docket #406. Dec #23 details what Judge Evans did throughout this case. Other violations are detailed in Dec #25 (MIST-1 Docket #462).
The various actions of Maid of the Mist, their attorneys, and Judge Evans constitute fraud upon the courts.
I naively felt like I had a chance when I was forced to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Of course the judges of the Eleventh Circuit have all been friends with Judge Evans during her 30 years as a federal judge. I believe that the judges of the Eleventh Circuit have issued one sentence decisions against me for the purpose of covering up for their friend, Judge Evans.
The questions ignored by the Eleventh Circuit were:
Whether the District Court erred by claiming there was not any evidence that Maid acted in bad faith in the course of this litigation when the record contains a massive amount of evidence from me, and it has not been disputed by Maid of the Mist.
Whether the District Court erred because there was no factual support for the Court's positions on the Order (Pet. App. 8).
Whether the District Court erred in denying Rule 60(b) Motion due to improper interpretation of the law.
Whether the District Court erred by claiming I did not have valid arguments under Rule 60(b).
Whether the District Court erred by failing to recuse herself and using improper factors in considering the Motion to Recuse.
Whether the District Court erred by failing to consider my Constitutional justification for recusal.
Whether the District Court erred by failing to address my Motion to Reopen under the Court's Inherent Powers.
Whether the District Court erred by claiming that Windsor's Rule 11 Motions for Sanctions were entirely lacking in merit when the record contains a massive amount of evidence from me and it has not been disputed by Maid of the Mist.
Whether the District Court erred by failing to give me my legal right to have his Reply to Responses considered.
Whether the District Court erred by failing to consider that this case casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process.
Whether the extraordinary circumstances require that the Court exercise its review and supervisory powers to review the entire case.
The legal system has been structured so that grave miscarriages of justice, such as the one in this case, should not happen.
Oaths theoretically require honesty. Every witness, attorney, and judge swears an oath to the truth. Attorneys and judges swear to abide by codes of conduct. But when the witnesses for Maid lied and committed perjury hundreds of times; when their attorneys suborned that perjury; when Plaintiffs' attorneys violated their oaths and the law for the purpose of committing fraud upon the courts; when Judge Evans actively participated in supporting the wrongdoing; and when all the lies deceived the U.S.C.A. on appeal, my most basic rights were violated.
The system theoretically provides safeguards and checks and balances. FRCP Rules 11, 34, and 37 and Local Rule 83.1C provide means to call party and attorney dishonesty to the attention of the judge. Rule 60 provides the ability for grave miscarriages of justice to be corrected by reopening cases and setting aside wrongful judgments. 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455 provide the means to seek recusal of a judge. But in this case, Judge Evans ignored the pleas under Rule 11, 34, and 37 claiming there was no proof despite mountains of it. In this case, Judge Evans improperly denied the Motion to Reopen. In this case, Judge Evans refused to be recused despite pervasive bias. In this case, Judge Evans ignored the reports of massive perjury and refused to even consider that Maid of the Mist and their attorneys should be sanctioned. There is no factual or legal basis for the actions of Judge Evans.
The worst of hardships have resulted from the dishonesty in this case. The Defendants have lost a fortune, have been saddled with an injunction that is a violation of Georgia law, have been defamed, and have lost years of man hours fighting the injustice. Now others are unfairly using the erroneous decision in this case in litigation against Alcatraz in efforts to "void" O.C.G.A.43-4B.
As hard as it may be for fellow federal judges to accept that a peer has committed serious judicial misconduct, I pray that personal feelings and doubt can be put aside to review the evidence because there has been a grave miscarriage of justice.
In 2009, I wrote to the Presiding Judges of the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit asking for a conference of some type, and he was ignored. I filed a Motion for Judicial Intervention asking these judges, the Supreme Court, and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to do something, but only the Supreme Court replied to say that they were unable to consider a letter and motion in a district court.
I sent detailed information to the FBI, the District Attorney, and the United States Attorney. The District Attorney referred me to the FBI. The FBI said $1,000,000 was not a big enough deal for them to get involved. The United States Attorney simply ignored it.
I have now written to every member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and only Senator Arlen Specter has replied in January 2010 by referring the letter to the two senators from Georgia. The Senators said they couldn't get involved.
After learning that there is no civil lawsuit allowed for perjury, and after none of the authorities responded, I filed a lawsuit against Judge Evans, Maid of the Mist. and their attorneys under Rule 60(d) for fraud upon the court and RICO. In the Verified Action in N. D. Ga. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD, I detail thousands of false statements, identifies hundreds of violations of criminal statutes (predicate acts for RICO), and references all of the proof about which I have sworn under penalty of perjury before a notary.
I had high hopes that another judge would finally step in and end this nightmare. Instead, Judge Evans' next-door neighbor was assigned the case. Judge William S. Duffey ("Judge Duffey") immediately denied all of the Petitioner's motions and requests based on no evidence other than the Petitioners; he ordered the Defendants to submit Motions to Dismiss; he denied me the ability to submit any motions without his prior approval, and more. Judge Duffey was previously acquainted with facts in MIST-1 because he called me "scurrilous and irresponsible" for taking legal action against his friend, Judge Evans. So much for impartial judges and fair trials!
And then the Eleventh Circuit has joined the act.
I asked the following questions of the Eleventh Circuit in my appeal, all of which are facts:
1. Should a court allow perjury by a party? How much perjury does it take to become objectionable? What about 450 counts of perjury?
2. Should a court allow attorneys to commit perjury by submitting false statements of fact to the court? How many false statements from attorneys does it take to become objectionable? What about 350 counts of perjury? [
3. Should a court allow attorneys to suborn perjury? How many instances of suborning perjury from an attorney does it take to become objectionable? What about hundreds?
4. Should a court allow attorneys to commit violations of the State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct? How many violations from an attorney does it take to become objectionable? What about hundreds?
5. Should a court allow attorneys to routinely violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP")? How many violations from an attorney does it take to become objectionable? What about dozens?
6. Should a court allow attorneys to routinely violate the laws of the state? How many laws must be violated by an attorney to become objectionable? What about nine laws violated repeatedly over three years?
7. Should a court allow attorneys to routinely violate the laws of the USA? How many laws must be violated by an attorney to become objectionable? What about eight laws violated repeatedly over three years?
8. Should the judicial system allow judges to commit perjury and obstruction of justice? How much perjury by a judge does it take to become objectionable? What about 250 counts of perjury?
9. Should a judge be allowed to completely and totally ignore the complaints of one party that the other party and their attorneys have committed massive misconduct as described above?
10. What should be done to attorneys and judges who commit such incredible misconduct? Shouldn't these attorneys be disbarred, and shouldn't this judge be impeached?
11. How do you compensate a litigant who had over $1,000,000 stolen from him in the guise of a lawsuit in which this professional misconduct completely and totally perverted the legal system?
12. How in the world can a judge even pretend to stand for truth and justice and decency if he/she allows things like this to happen?
I have the evidence if someone will just care.
The dishonest and/or corrupt judges are: Judge Orinda D. Evans and Judge William S. Duffey. The dishonest and/or corrupt judges with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit are Judge Joel F. Dubina, Judge J.L. Edmondson, Judge Frank M. Hull, Judge Ed Carnes, Judge Stanley Marcus, Judge Rosemary Barkett, and Judge William H. Pryor.
The judges with the Court of Appeals don't just allow the corruption to take place; they facilitate it.
This is like a horrible nightmare that has consumed five years of my life and a fortune in hard-earned money.
My wife feels that the fine people at the Supreme Court will read some of this and think that everyone feels they should have won; this cannot be true; and this guy is crazy. Please do not think this.
This is a case of legal and judicial abuse on steroids. This is a case that will prove that there is no such thing as justice in America if the Supreme Court declines to act.
And guess what, thus far, The United States Supreme Court ruled that this case was not worthy of their attention. I did not realize that The Supreme Court is not really an appellate court. You don't get to have your case reviewed by The Supreme Court. THEY decide if a case is worthy of their consideration -- whether they feel it has important value as a precedent. It would be wonderful to hear how one or more of the members of The United States Supreme Court decided that such corruption and dishonesty was not worthy.... Additional miotions are pending with The Supreme Court -- the only hope for anything to be done in this matter.
If you are wondering why such corruption has not been covered by the news media, it seems that the media cannot risk taking on the federal courts either. I was unable to find an attorney to represent me in this matter because they said they could not risk their careers. They knew that there would be reprisals, and their careers would be screwed.
Since I filed the above information with The Supreme Court, I have learned a lot more about the corruption in the federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia. I now know the various techniques that the judges use. I have identified at least seven judges who are at the very least dishonest and who are probably corrupt with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. I have now seen face-to-face the extreme dishonesty and criminal acts of Judge Orinda D. Evans. I now know that she didn't make "mistakes" with all of this. What she has done has been intentional, corrupt, and criminal. She absolutely needs to be indicted, convicted, jailed, and impeached.
Judges break the law in a number of ways. They have a standard little bag of tricks, and they are all smart enough to know how to abuse them.
Ignore the Law
One of the primary techniques used by corrupt judges is to simply ignore the law. One party cites the law and overwhelming case law. The other party doesn't have a leg to stand on. The judge simplyn ignores the klaw and rules against the party that was legally right.
In one instance, I presented literally thousands of cases that proved that I was right. In fact, there had never been a case in any court where there was a ruling other than one that would be in my favor. But Judge Orinda D. Evans had one and only one motive, so she ignored the law and ruled against me.
Sometimes a judge will feel like citation of case law is needed to support their ruling. So, they cite a case that is in some way related, but they claim the case applied when it didn't. Judge William S. Duffey has done that a number of times. He cites a case in his orders, and then when I review those cases, I find that they actually proved my position. But he ruled against me because he needed to in order to shield his good friend, Judge Orinda D. Evans, from criminal prosecution and impeachment.
Lie about the Facts in Orders
Lying under oath is perjury. Judges are always under oath, and a judge is supposed to never say or write anything that isn't true. So, when a judge knowlingly lies in orders for the purpose of ruling against a party for the judge's criminal reasons, it is a criminal violation of perjury. Each such instance is a separate count. In my case, Judge Evans has committed hundreds and hundreds of counts of perjury. The record filed with the Court proves that she lied, but she gets away with it because the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' judges will lie to protect their fellow judge.
Another of Judge Evans' favorite techniques is to simply ignore issues in orders. She does not respond to motions on a timely basis, and then she takes many motions at once and rules on them. This buries the fact that she ignored motions where her ruling could not possible be explained. So, rather than make up an explanation, she just ignores those tough issues.
A really dishonest judge like Judge Orinda Evans will simply conceal evidence. In my case, she has two documents that will prove fraud by the other party and their attorney. She simply conceals that evidence and refuses to allow it to see the light of day so her criminal efforts are not exposed.
Say Nothing in Orders
One of the favorite techniques of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is to say nothing. They corruptly call an appeal "frivolous" and dismiss it with no explanation whatsoever. Sometimes they write a page or two simply reciting history of the case, so it appears it is a real order, and then they write one sentence dismissing the appeal with no valid reason or explanation.
Don't Publish the Improper Orders
The Eleventh Circuit has NEVER published one of the orders in my appeals. When they are violating the law, they have protection by not publishing the order. That keeps it from the eyes of attorneys and other judges who would identify the wrongdoing. Publishing would also make their erroneous decisions precedents for other cases. The whole legal system would be turned even more upside down if this were to happen.
Someone somewhere needs to do something. All of these judges should spend the rest of their years behind bars rather than sitting at home drawing fat lifetime pensions at our expense.