Click
here: Judge James A. Haynes denies Bill Windsor's Rule 60 Motion
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Sharons Informal Brief re: FIAFEA_FIRREA_A09-2031 « Sharon4andersonâ??s Weblog www.taxthemax.blogspot.com
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. FindLaw:KELO V NEWLONDON Supreme Court Center: Docket: February 2005 Cases www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon
v. Arch.
Judge James A. Haynes denies Bill Windsor's Rule 60 Motion also https://donmashakspoliticaldissentdefinitions.wordpress.com/tag/judicial-code-red/
- Wednesday, 25 November 2015 12:00
- William M. Windsor
 |
Judge
James A. Haynes has
denied Bill
Windsor's
Rule 60 Motion without legal justification.
A
Rule 60 motion is used to set aside a void order -- an order generated through
fraud -- an order that has no basis in law.
Rule
60 motions have been filed as many as 60 years after an order was issued, but
Judge James A. Haynes couldn't address the illegality of the August 23, 2013 Ex
Parte Temporary Order of Protection, so he simply denied it without
justification....
This
is a favorite technique of corrupt judges all across America.
Here
is Bill Windsor's Rule 60 Motion:
William
M. Windsor (“Windsor”) files a Motion to Set Aside Orders pursuant to MCA Rule
60(b)(4), MCA
3-1-113,
and the Court’s inherent powers. This is the Brief in
Support.
INTRODUCTION
This
Court and its predecessor have issued several orders that are void or invalid.
On August 23, 2013, Judge Sam Warren of the Missoula Municipal Court (“MMC”)
entered an ex parte temporary order of protection (“EX PARTE TOP”) in Case
#OP-2013-00198. The
statutory authority to issue a TOP in Montana allows a court to issue a TOP for
“up to 20 days.” The EX PARTE TOP in this case was issued for 24 days. The
issuing court exceeded its authority, and the order is void or invalid.
It must be set aside pursuant to Montana
Rules of Civil Procedure (“MRCP”)
Rule 60(b)(4) and/or MCA
3-1-113.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
On
August 21, 2013, Sean Boushie filed an ex parte Petition for Temporary Order of
Protection and Hearing (“Petition”) against Windsor in the MMC Case #
OP-2013-00198.[OP-2013-00198
DOCKET #1.]
On
August 21, 2013, the day Sean Boushie filed his application for a protective
order, Windsor filed a University of Montana Police Report against Sean Boushie
for stalking. Sean Boushie did not file anything, and Officer Nick Painter of
the University of Montana Police advised Windsor that he spoke with Sean Boushie
and told him to stay away from him and cease sending him emails or messages. [A
true and correct copy of the videos filmed while I was on the University of
Montana campus on August 21, 2013 are onhttp://www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica, and
are referenced and incorporated herein as if attached hereto.] This was filming
an expose story. There was no stalking.
On
August 23, 2013, an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection (“EX PARTE TOP”) was
granted to Sean Boushie by MMC Judge Sam Warren, pursuant to MCA 40-15-201. Judge
Sam Warren issued
the EX
PARTE TOP without
even speaking to Sean Boushie, much less Windsor.
The
EX PARTE TOP states twice that it expires on 09/16/2013.
On
August 23, 2013, the entry on the Docket in MMC Case # OP-2013-00198 reads,
“Expiration Days: 24 Expiration Date 9/16/2013.” [OP-2013-00198
DOCKET.]
On
August 23, 2013, the Docket in the MMC shows a hearing was scheduled for
09/09/2013 on Order of Protection, as does the EX PARTE TOP. [OP-2013-00198
DOCKET.]
On
August 26, 2013, Windsor filed a 24-page sworn Motion for Modification of
Temporary Order of Protection in the MMC in OP-2013-00198. This detailed many of
the problems with the EX PARTE TOP. This motion was never addressed. In fact, it
was withheld from the docket. [OP-2013-00198 DOCKET.]
On
August 26, 2013, Windsor filed a 28-page sworn Answer to Petition for Protective
Order of Boushie and Sworn Petition for Permanent Order of Protection in the MMC
in OP-2013-00198. This detailed many of the problems with the EX PARTE TOP.
Windsor swore that the petition contains many counts of perjury and massive
hearsay. This motion was never addressed. In fact, it was withheld from the
docket. [OP-2013-00198 DOCKET.]
On
August 26, 2013, following
the filings in the MMC, Windsor
appealed the EX PARTE TOP to the District Court (“DC”) pursuant to MCA
40-15-302(1). This created DV-13-969
in the DC. (DV-13-969 DOCKET.) Windsor did not remove the case to the DC.
On
October 3, 2014, the State filed an Information charging me with five violations
of the EX
PARTE TOP. The earliest alleged violation occurred
on December 30, 2013, long after the EX PARTE TOP had expired. (See DC-14-509
Docket #s 1-2-3-4-5.]
ARGUMENTS
I.
A Court May Relieve a Respondent from an Invalid Order Pursuant to MRCP Rule
60 or, if necessary in the interest of justice, under
its
Inherent Authority.
This
motion concerns an EX PARTE TOP that was issued on August 23, 2013. The EX
PARTE TOP has become the basis for criminal charges against Windsor. But there
are fundamental errors in the order that that involve the issuing court’s
subject matter jurisdiction and violation of Windsor’s right to due process.
For these reasons, this Court should deem the order void or invalid, or vacate
the order.
“Voidness
is defined in terms of lack of jurisdiction or violation of due process.”
United
Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U. S. 130 S. Ct. 1367, 176L. Ed. 2d
158, 170 (2010) (citing Moore's).
“[A]
void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity
may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” United
Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 1377, 176
L.Ed.2d 158 (2010).
In Corban
v. Corban, 161 Mont. 93, 96, 504 P.2d 985, 987 (1972), the MSC
found that, “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any
time and a court which in fact lacks such jurisdiction cannot acquire it even by
consent of the parties.”
This
Court has held that an invalid and void order can be attacked in any proceeding
where they come into issue. Pennoyer
v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877).
This
court has authority to review and correct the infirmities of the order in spite
of the passage of time.
A. Rule
60.
First,
under MRCP Rule 60, this Court has the authority to declare orders void or
invalid.
Rule
60(b)(4) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that “is void,” but
only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type
of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party
of notice or the opportunity to be heard. (United
Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 261, 130 S.Ct.
1367, 1371, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010).)
MRCP
Rule 60(b)(4) allows an order to be set aside because it is void or
invalid.
“…the
question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one.” (Hicklin
v. CSC Logic, Inc., 283 Mont. 298, 301, 940 P.2d 447, 449
(1997); Export
Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995);
(In
re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Anderson, 218 P.3d 1220,
353 Mont. 139, 2009 MT 344 (Mont. 10/20/2009).)
Windsor
must be relieved from this order pursuant to MRCP Rule 60(b)(4). (Elliot
v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).)
B.
Inherent Authority
Even
if the Court can’t grant the relief requested here under MRCP Rule 60, it can
grant the relief under its inherent authority. There exists an age-old and
well-established principle that every court has power to do what is necessary
for the administration of real and substantial justice.
MCA
3-1-113. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect.When jurisdiction is, by the
constitution or any statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the
means necessary for the exercise of such jurisdiction are also given. In the
exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding is not specifically
pointed out by this code, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.
“…a
court could exercise its inherent power only when the established methods for
addressing the court’s needs failed or when an emergency arose that was not
remedied by the established methods.” (Hillis
v. Sullivan (1913), 48
Mont. 320, 137 P. 395.)
“our
inherent power and paramount obligation to interpret Montana’s Constitution and
to protect the various rights set forth in that document.” (State
v. Finley(1996), 276 Mont. 126, 915 P.2d 208.)
The
fundamental flaws in the EX PARTE TOP warrant this Court’s exercise of its
inherent authority to declare the order void or invalid.
Courts
of equity have the inherent power to grant the relief that justice requires.
(Tiffany
v. Uhde (1950), 123 Mont.
507, 512-13, 216 P.2d 375, 378.)
II.
The
Temporary Order of Protection was VOID from
inception.
Montana
courts are authorized to issue an Ex Parte Temporary Order of
Protection pursuant to MCA 40-15-201. The
statute limits the term of an ex parte TOP as follows:
The
court may, without requiring prior notice to the respondent, issue an immediate
temporary order of protection for up to 20 days if the court finds, on the basis
of the petitioner's sworn petition or other evidence, that harm may result to
the petitioner if an order is not issued before the 20-day period for responding
has elapsed. 40-15-201(4), MCA.
In
the instant case, the Municipal Court issued a 24 day TOP against Windsor.
(DOCKET #1 – August 23, 2013.)
The
statute clearly limits a court’s authority to issue a TOP for a period in excess
of 20 days. The
mandate that the courts adhere strictly to the letter of statutory law is
inflexible. In State
v. Evert,
93 P.3d 1254, 322 Mont. 105, 2004 MT 178 (Mont. 07/06/2004) the Montana Supreme
Court explained:
The
laws of the State of Montana are written to ensure that justice is served and
the well-being of society and individuals is safe-guarded. Contrary to the
County Attorney's pronouncement to the District Court that "we don't hold firm
to the technicalities of the statute or the Supreme Court rulings," adherence to
the legislative enactments and the decisions of this Court is not a matter of
convenience or prosecutorial preference. No court or officer of the court has
the prerogative of circumventing or modifying the procedures established by
law. Id.
Based
upon a plain reading of the unambiguous limitations of MCA 40-15-201 the EX
PARTE TOP is an extra-judicial order that exceeded the court’s authority. Such
an order cannot be made valid by any court.
Courts
are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to
them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it,
their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but
simply void, and this even prior to reversal. Vallely
v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116
(1920).
III. Orders
issued by the MMC and the DC are void orders and became
moot.
If
this Court agrees that the EX PARTE TOP had a fundamental flaw and it should be
vacated, all other orders related to the order become moot.
CONCLUSION
The
statutory authority to issue a TOP in Montana allows a court to issue a TOP for
“up to 20 days.” The EX PARTE TOP in this case was issued for 24 days. The
issuing court exceeded its authority, and the order is void or invalid.
It must be set aside pursuant to MRCP Rule
60(b)(4), and all other orders become moot.
WHEREFORE,
William M. Windsor prays that this Court will order that the EX PARTE TOP was
void or invalid and is set aside pursuant to MRCP
Rule 60(b)(4) or the Court’s Inherent Authority;
and grant such other relief as the Court feels is appropriate.
Submitted this 12th day November,
2015,
_________________________________
William
M. Windsor
110
East Center Street #1213, Madison, SD 57042, 770-578-1094, bill@billwindsor.com
I
will be announcing a special filming after the trial in Missoula. I want to try
to get as many victims as possible to come to the trial. Then we will film a
group session followed by filming of individual stories. So, if you are in
Montana or have friends there, please ask them to participate.
Bill
Windsor has been suspended from Facebook for 30 days for publishing something
that he didn't publish. So, for all the news, come here.
Image
copyright Friends of Bill Windsor
For
a quick update on Bill Windsor's saga and upcoming trial, see this summary
on LawlessAmerica.com.
If
you want to reach Bill Windsor, his home address is 110 East Center Street
#1213, Madison, SD 57042. That mail gets forwarded to him once a week.
His email isbill@billwindsor.com. His
phone is 770-578-1094, but it is not answered; messages are checked by dialing
in to Verizon from a state far, far away, and Bill receives an email with the
name, number, and one sentence summary of each message.
For
the Lawless America videos, see www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica. Bill Windsor's
Facebook page is www.facebook.com/billwindsor1
Bill Windsor's Twitter account is www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica.
And click here for the Lawless America Facebook
page that has just
magically reappeared.
I,
William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS.
The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and
do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article
is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I
do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose
government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and
judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in
the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of
circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the
conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest
that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly
after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please
read our Legal Notice and Terms.
FABOJ
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Sharons Informal Brief re: FIAFEA_FIRREA_A09-2031 « Sharon4andersonâ??s Weblog www.taxthemax.blogspot.com
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. FindLaw:KELO V NEWLONDON Supreme Court Center: Docket: February 2005 Cases www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon
v. Arch.
