Does William M. Windsor's Case Document U.S. Federal Judiciary Systemic Corruption?

William M. Windsor

If William M. Windsor's story rendered on the linked webpage is true (and I have no reason at this point to believe otherwise), it exposes systemic corruption in the federal government. Excerpt:

These judges routinely ignored the facts and the law and even invented their own facts.[43]  These judges have made rulings that are absolutely contrary to the law.  Judge Evans even denied us any ability to obtain the names of witnesses that we needed to depose. She granted a summary judgment for Maid on the key issue in the case – an oral agreement for six months in 2005 — based upon the following: Maid testified that its president was not aware of an agreement with Alcatraz. There was no other testimony from Maid other than this one statement in the Verified Complaint! Alcatraz provided a Verified Answer, multiple sworn affidavits, and extensive deposition testimony detailing the exact terms of the oral agreement from the people who made the oral agreement with Maid. This clearly created at least a fact issue that defeated summary judgment, but Judge Evans invented facts that weren't true and weren't in the record, ignored the truth, and claimed her facts trumped the A&W's sworn testimony. As there was a contract, there was no tortious interference, but there was breach of contract by Maid, and A&W should have won the case.

via My Story.

When the George W. Bush administration got off scot-free for all its lies in the lead up to wars, illegal wire tappings, torturings, no-bid contracts (handled illegally), firings of whistleblowers, uses of chemical weaponry on unarmed civilians, banking and other frauds, routine denials of due process, secretive court dealings, and cover-ups of 9/11 and other events (is there any area where it didn't violate the laws?), it became clear that the US had become more blatantly lawless than at any other time in my lifetime up to that point. I wrote that at the time.

From the moment they first heard him or even heard of him, many people put their hopes and faith in Barack Obama. I did not, not even slightly. He struck me as just another in the long string of "Presidents" in my lifetime, with the possible partial exceptions of Kennedy and Carter, who are corrupted by the plutocrats against the citizenry as a whole.

What has Obama done? He's compromised as much as humanly possible on the side of the corrupt all the while trying to sound as if he really gives a damn about the citizenry as a whole and each member of it.

Even though huge corruption in banking and all sorts of other areas has been exposed, Barack Obama has done as much as he can (short of the people rising up to overthrow the corrupt government) to give the plutocrats exactly what they order while Obama placates, or tries to, the whole people. He hides behind his "don't look back" mantra, which is a sure fired recipe for repeating the same mistakes (and he's known that all along).

If this man's story is correct, if William M. Windsor is telling the truth and the US Supreme Court refuses to make his son and him whole and to bring down the corrupt judges cited by William, then the government of the United States of America is shown once again to be illegal and illegitimate.

I do not advocate violence in overthrowing it.

I will say right here though that those who take up arms against a systemically corrupted government have the lesser sin relative to those within that systemically corrupted government who seek to prevent its overthrow.

Who can doubt it?

Look, did Alcatraz Media have a contract with "Maid of the Mist" that Maid of the Mist operatively breached? If so, who is Judge Orinda D. Evans (retired; semi-retired?), and why did she rule in favor of Maid of the Mist at every turn. Further, why has every court and judge thereafter also sided with Maid of the Mist and Evans, according to William, concerning every single motion against Maid of the Mist?


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

      Your blog is about me, and everything that I have said is absolutely true and documented. See" target="_blank">

      The proof that I have of the corruption goes way past the initial bogus ruling. Virtually every order on every issue was wrong -- intentionally ignoring the facts and the law.

      Please spread the word on this because the mainstream media is afraid of the judges, and they are not reporting it. We are all in serious trouble, and it will be up to all of us to do something about it.

      • Thank you for your comment, William.