Continued from Bill Windsor Sworn Affidavit – Part 1
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has not handled the proceedings in a regular way and according to the law. 73 of the pleadings by the attorneys for the Defendants had not been signed, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton accepted them and denied my motions to strike.
- For example, APPENDIX 36 (Pages 000402 to 000444) is the Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Require my Submissions and/or Pleadings to the Court Be Reviewed, Approved and Signed by a Member of the Florida Bar (“BAR MOTION”). If was filed 2/17/2021. It is unsigned. It should have been stricken.
- APPENDIX 37 – Page 000454 is Page 11 of the BAR MOTION marked to show where the signature is supposed to be. There is the required signature on the Certificate of Service, but NOT on the BAR MOTION. APPENDIX 37 – Pages 000459 to 000460 is a recent filing by Assistant State Attorney David Asti to show the proper signature. EVERY filing by me shows I always properly signed.
- APPENDIX 66 – Part 2: Pages 001642 to 001661 is the Docket in Orange County Case # 2018-010270-O as of 3/25/2021. Pages 000853 to 000856 of APPENDIX 52 is my analysis of the DOCKET to show which filings are unsigned (fifth column). Please take judicial notice of the DOCKET and the unsigned filings.
- Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration dictates the requirement:
“Every document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record in that attorney’s individual name whose current record Florida Bar address, telephone number, including area code, primary e-mail address and secondary e-mail address, if any, and Florida Bar number shall be stated, and who shall be duly licensed to practice law in Florida or who shall have received permission to appear in the particular case as provided in rule 2.510. The attorney may be required by the court to give the address of, and to vouch for the attorney’s authority to represent, the party. Except when otherwise specifically provided by an applicable rule or statute, documents need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of an attorney shall constitute a certificate by the attorney that:
- the attorney has read the document;
- to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support the document;
- the document is not interposed for delay; and
- the document contains no confidential or sensitive information, or that any such confidential or sensitive information has been properly protected by complying with the provisions of rules 2.420 and 2.425. If a document is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken and the action may proceed as though the document had not been served.” [emphasis added.]
- EXHIBIT C to the March 12, 2021 Affidavit of William M. Windsor [APPENDIX 85 – Pages: 003874 to 003894] is a spreadsheet listing each document filed in Orange County Case #2018-010270-O in the 903 days the case had been pending. Column A is my Docket Number since the Clerk of the Court does not number the Docket entries; Column B is the Party who filed; Column C is the Category of the filings; Column D is whether the document was sworn as true and correct under penalty of perjury; Column E shows whether or not the document was signed; Column F is the title of the filing; Column G is the date of the filing; Column H is the number of pages; and Column I shows the Legal Authority specified in the opening paragraph of the Filing.
- This shows there had been only one filing signed by an attorney for the Defendants; it is an agreed motion that was prepared by my attorney on 1/17/2020.
- It shows 46 filings were filed by me and sworn as true and correct under penalty of perjury. Not one filing by the Defendants or their attorneys in 903 days was sworn as true and correct, much less under penalty of perjury. My 46 filings add 655 pages of sworn testimony plus exhibits. This gave me a grand total of 813 pages of sworn testimony in Case # 2018-010270-O.
- There was no proof that Scott L. Astrin or anyone read the motions and other filings, and there was no certification that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there was good ground to support these filings.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is not handling the proceedings in a regular way and according to the law because he accepts the unverified claims of the attorneys for the Defendants as fact.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton accepted the BAR MOTION filed by Attorney Scott L. Astrin. It was unverified, and there was no affidavit. Based on the unverified factual claims in the BAR MOTION, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton instructed the Defendants’ attorney to issue an Order to Show Cause. Then he granted a motion when there was absolutely no evidence but mine.
- Many of the false statements in the BAR MOTION are identified under oath under penalty of perjury in my sworn affidavit that is APPENDIX 50 – Pages 000817 to 000837.
- At the hearing on the Order to Show Cause, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton used information provided by Attorney Scott L. Astrin that was not verified or provided under oath. [APPENDIX 82 – Pages 002190 to 002194 (Transcript P.19: 24-25, P. 20, 21, 22, 23).] It was not entered into evidence at the Hearing, and Scott L. Astrin failed to comply with the Procedures established for the Hearing. [APPENDIX 7 – Pages: 000030 to 000032.] But Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton had no other factual basis to issue his orders.
- APPENDIX 85 – Pages: 003874 to 003894 lists all the pleadings. The second column identifies the Party. The fourth column shows No if the pleading was neither sworn nor accompanied by an affidavit.
- 82 of the Defendants’ motions and filings were not verified. There were no affidavits, and claims of facts should have been stricken.
- Attorneys may not present facts, only legal arguments. This legal requirement must be made clear to the attorneys as they had violated this requirement in every pleading and at every hearing in Case # 2018-010270-O.
- An attorney’s unsworn statements do not establish a fact.
- Argument of counsel is not evidence.
- This is clearly established by the Eleventh Circuit and every federal appellate court. I have cited extensive case law on this.
- The 5DCA should have stopped the Circuit Court from allowing unverified claims of the attorneys for the Defendants to be accepted as facts. All of the judges in Case # 2018-010270-O have done this.
- The actions of the trial court are a material departure from the essential requirements of law. Evidence of facts must be presented under oath. Verification of documents is required by Florida Statute 525, but the attorneys for the Defendants have never verified any document.
- Arguments of the Defendants’ attorneys violate Florida Statute 90.604 due to lack of personal knowledge; violate Florida Statute 90.605 as there has been no oath or affirmation of the attorney as a witness; violate Florida Statute 90.802 as hearsay rule; violate Florida Statute 90.901 due to failure to provide authentication or identification of evidence; violate Florida Statute 90.957 as there is not testimony or written admissions; and violate Florida Case Law that the unsworn statements of fact by attorneys do not establish facts.
- These violations resulted in a real miscarriage of justice, AND IT HAS JUST GOTTEN WORSE.
- The errors cause me irreparable harm during the remaining proceedings. This violated my Constitutional rights that cannot be fixed by an appeal at the end of the case. I will lose the case, and I will be unable to appeal. I felt I would probably be forced into bankruptcy, and I was.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton did not handle the proceedings in a regular way and according to the law when he ordered filing restrictions against me without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied due process to me, and he did it to make it impossible for me to properly respond to his totally biased and unlawful Order to Show Cause [APPENDIX 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].
- This is Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s Order Denying me the right to file anything in this case unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar entered 3/25/2021 without notice or an opportunity to be heard: [APPENDIX 6.]
“WHEREAS, the Court, on March 2, 2021 set for hearing an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff as to why the Court should not grant Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Require Pro Se Plaintiff William Windsor’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed by a Member of the Florida Bar on April 5, 2021. WHEREAS, since the issuance of the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has filed twenty six items with the Clerk of the Court in this matter. Among the motions, was a request for sixteen hours of hearing time on the Order to Show Cause. Among the matters filed, are item described as affidavits of exhibits totaling one thousand six hundred and seventy pages. The Clerk is hereby directed to decline to file any further documents by the pro se Plaintiff unless they contain a certificate by a member of the Florida Bar that have reviewed the matter and that the filing is appropriate. This Order shall remain in effect until close of business April 5, 2021.”
The truth is I filed motions totaling 23-pages and 15½-pages of sworn affidavits. The rest was EVIDENCE. The evidence was necessitated by the BAR MOTION. The following is what was filed and why:
- APPENDIX 41 – Motion requesting the amount of time I estimated to be necessary to respond to the BAR MOTION and Order to Show Cause. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton asked for a letter from me in this regard, but I wanted this issue in the record of the court. 1½-pages. Truth verified under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 45 – Motion to strike strange, hidden docket entry. I suspect foul play over this. 1½-pages. Truth verified under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 46 – My Verified Motion to Strike Answer and Amended Answer; Enter a Decree Pro Confesso; enter Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff; and Schedule the Jury Trial for Damages. This should have ended the case in my favor. 4-pages. Truth verified before a notary and sworn under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 50 — Verified Affidavit of William M. Windsor dated March 12, 2021. This is my response to the BAR MOTION [APPENDIX 36.] This Affidavit is sworn under penalty of perjury before a notary. It dissects the unsigned, unsworn, unverified BAR MOTION and attaches over 1,000 pages of evidence that prove the motion is frivolous and that Scott L. Astrin lied to the Court. The purpose of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s 3/25/2021 Order was to stop me from filing my evidence to defeated the BAR MOTION and gut the Order to Show Cause. This was a truly outrageous act by a hopelessly biased “judge.” 14½-pages.
- APPENDIX 51 — Verified Affidavit of William M. Windsor regarding Prior Sworn Statements. One page of testimony sworn under penalty of perjury before a notary.
- APPENDIX 83 — Motion to find Defendants in Contempt. 3-page Motion and 23 pages of evidence. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 54 — Motion for Accommodations for a Senior Citizen with Disabilities. I am disabled. 4-pages. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 55 – Motion to Declare that All Statements by Attorneys that Purport to be Facts in Pleadings or in Hearings Must be Stricken Unless the Attorney filed an Affidavit Sworn Under Penalty of Perjury or is at an Evidentiary Hearing when Sworn to tell the Truth Under Penalty of Perjury. This was filed because Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton violates this fundamental legal requirement. 3½-pages. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 56 –Motion to Compel Defendants and All Non-Parties to Produce Each Separate Item Requested for Production in a File Folder Marked to show the Date Requested and the Item Number of the Request. 1½-pages. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 57 – Motion Regarding Pro Se Verifications. This addressed the issue that I cannot always obtain a notary. 1-page. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury. The rules have now changed.
- APPENDIX 58 – Motion to Compel Defendant and all Non-Parties to Comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.280 (B) (6) when producing documents. 1½-pages. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury.
- APPENDIX 59 — Motion to Declare I am Not Obligated to Comply with the Florida Handbook on Civil Discovery or the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. This addresses problems encountered by me in this and other cases. 2-pages. Verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury.
- If these filings deny an American the right to represent himself in court, that sound you hear is our forefathers turning over in their graves.
- What Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton should have written is what I believe he was thinking “OH ____. That damn Windsor has evidence, case law, and a motion that will blow Wynne and Astrin out of the water. I’ve got to stop him.”
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton must be stopped from doing what he is doing. I have no means of redress but this.
- As a Pro Se party, I have limited knowledge regarding jurisdiction, but it seemed that Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton was without jurisdiction to enter filing restrictions without any manner of due process. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s authority comes from the Constitutions, and he violated Article I Section 2, Section 9, and Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.
- The actions of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton are a material departure from the essential requirements of law. Departure from the essential requirements of law means there is a violation of a clearly established principle of law. This violation resulted in a real miscarriage of justice and a denial of due process.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is not handling the proceedings in a regular way and according to the law by granting the BAR MOTION.
- There is no legal authority for the BAR MOTION.
- My research indicates there have been 172 appellate court decisions in the history of Florida containing the phrase “signed by a member of the Florida Bar” or “signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.” I have reviewed all the cases that could be relevant to the instant case.
- APPENDIX 39 – Pages: 000572 to 000584 is a spreadsheet listing all 172. 148 of those required to have pleadings signed a member of the Florida Bar were prisoners. 5 of the 177 were attorneys limited by The Florida Bar while disbarred. So, 19 were not prisoners or attorneys.
- Nineteen (19) Florida citizens in the entire history of the state! I have summarized the opinions in each of the 19 cases. [APPENDIX 39 – Pages: 000568 to 000570.]
- Attorney Scott L. Astrin and Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton wanted to make me the 20th. Scott Astrin is dishonest, and Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is maliciously biased, dishonest, corrupt, a bully, and so much more.
- The cases reviewed show there is no way in the world for any court to require me to have my pleadings signed by a member of the Florida Bar.
- The first column on these spreadsheets numbers them. The second column shows the Case Style. The third column shows if the Plaintiff was a Prisoner. The fourth column provides a brief summary of the Issues. The fifth column indicates whether the Plaintiff had been ruled to be a Vexatious Litigant under Florida law. The sixth column indicates whether the case was further addressed in a Memorandum of Law. [APPENDIX 39 – Pages: 000568 to 000584.] The seventh column indicates whether the opinion indicated a Show Cause Order had been issued by the appellate court. The eighth and ninth columns provide the remainder of the citation (in addition to the first column).
- Three of the 19 had been declared Vexatious Litigants pursuant to Florida statutes. I could not be so declared. I’d never lost a Florida case.
- The 19 penalized people included a frivolous and flagrant attempt to circumvent the Court’s previously entered sanction order. One plaintiff filed identical petitions in multiple cases in violation of a court order. I had not violated any court order, and I have never filed an identical petition.
- The other penalized plaintiffs had 17 cases filed with no relief and determined frivolous; 85 cases filed; multiple meritless petitions; 22 cases showing a profound lack of understanding of the court system in general and of the appellate system in particular; 45 cases dismissed; 26 baseless Florida pleadings; numerous pleadings devoid of merit and failure to properly pursue actions; numerous meritless filings; 25 appellate proceedings found to have no merit; relitigating matters decided earlier and 12 federal court actions against judges. I had never had anything declared frivolous or baseless; I had never been found to have filed a meritless petition. I have had cases wrongfully dismissed, and they were appealed. I have an excellent understanding of the court system; I have never filed an appellate proceeding found to have no merit.
- Not a single one of the 172 was restricted in Florida because of something that purportedly happened in another state. Not a single one of the 172 was restricted for filing evidence and valid motions as I have done.
- The BAR MOTION fails to meet the requirements for the entry of an injunction. The Relief requested by Scott L. Astrin is an injunction. The Defendants do not have standing to seek an injunction, and these attorneys failed to state the essential elements. This was argued in APPENDIX 40 – Pages 000609 to 000614. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton completely ignored this.
- The actions of the trial court are a material departure from the essential requirements of law. There is a violation of a clearly established principle of law. Citizens are allowed to represent themselves pro se and file evidence in support of their pleadings. Denying me these rights has resulted in a total miscarriage of justice and denial of due process.
- The Sixth Amendment provides the Constitutional right to self-representation. That right should be enjoyed without fear of harassment or judicial prejudice. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right. Theoretically, Pro Se Litigants have no less of a right to effective due process as those who utilize an attorney. This is what my children used to call a Fig Newton of imagination. I encourage review the cases of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton to see how many Pro Se Plaintiffs have won their cases in his court. I will not be shocked if there are none. I am currently working on gathering his cases for review.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has expressed his disdain for pro se parties. He has harassed me and demonstrated extreme judicial prejudice. Consider these statements by Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton at the Hearing on the Order to Show Cause on April 5, 2021:
THE COURT: “… this matter has been about a year since Counsel was withdrawn from the case and this case has not proceeded at all towards trial or resolution. [APPENDIX 82 – Page 002175 (Transcript-P.4:8-11).]
THE COURT: “So that’s one of the issues I’m having with you is if you were a lawyer you wouldn’t say that because you would know that that’s not how it works. And, see, that’s why I’m concerned about the progress of your litigation is because you appear to have become so wrapped up in a personal argument with Counsel or with me that you’ve lost sight of the actual lawsuit itself. Because all the stuff that you’re doing is not advancing your lawsuit. It’s not getting you to a favorable resolution. And a lawyer would know that. And that’s my concern is that you have become so obsessed with a battle with the lawyer or with the judge that you completely lose sight of the endgame, which is getting your case prepared, ready and presented to a jury.” [APPENDIX 82 — Page 002200 (Transcript-P.29:3-18.)]
THE COURT: “They have no basis in law. I’ve looked at them. If you were a lawyer you would know that. But I understand that you’ve done some research and you’re obviously a very bright man, but that’s the difficulty here, is that right now I’m presented with a choice, either allow this thing to continue to spiral out of control or require you to have a lawyer help you get this case to move forward.” [APPENDIX 82 — Page 002200 – 002201 (Transcript-P.29:25, P.30:1-8.)]
THE COURT: “Well, sir, this is another area that you fail to understand the subtlety of. But if you were going to be held in contempt you’d be correct. But the order to show cause was simply to show cause why I shouldn’t grant a motion. That has a different legal implication. So this is just another example of how what you interpret something a certain way that isn’t accurate and if you were an attorney you would understand more how those things happen.” [APPENDIX 82 — Page 002204 (Transcript-P.33:1-10.)]
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton then granted the BAR MOTION and ordered that I may not file anything unless approved and signed by a member of the Florida BAR.
- I could not afford an attorney as Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton was well aware. [APPENDIX Pages 000891, 001194, 001211, 001249, 001910, 002179.] I testified to this under oath at the April 5, 2021 Hearing. [APPENDIX Page 002179.]
- At the April 5, 2021 Hearing on the Order to Show Cause, I asked Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton to recuse himself five times:
- WINDSOR: “Your Honor, I have absolutely done nothing wrong that would justify a Court requiring that I have a member of the Florida Bar review and sign — absolutely nothing. The order to show cause is entirely bogus. And I believe only a dishonest judge would allow a hearing on a matter such as this. In my opinion the hearing is judicial wrongdoing. I object to the hearing. I have filed an Exhibit 400. I tender it to the Court for admission. It explains the reasons why this meeting should be cancelled.”
THE COURT: “It will not be considered. Sir, the purpose of the rule to show cause is to address the allegations in the motion. So go ahead.” [APPENDIX 82 –Transcript-P.5:14-25, P. 6: 1-2.]
WINDSOR: “…The extent of your bias against me is truly overwhelming. I attempt to tender Exhibits 353 and 356, which explain this.”
THE COURT: “It will not be accepted.”
WINDSOR: “Okay. So you refuse to recuse yourself, Your Honor?”
THE COURT: “Sir, there’s been no motion filed, pursuant to the rules. And based on the outcome of this hearing will determine whether you will be able to file one. That’s the point of this hearing.”
WINDSOR: “All right. I’m asking Your Honor to recuse yourself because you have done nothing but demonstrate extreme bias and prejudice. Will you recuse yourself?”
THE COURT: “Mr. Windsor, you have 20 minutes to say whatever you want. And that time is running.”
WINDSOR: “I’m asking you to recuse yourself and you have refused.” [APPENDIX 82 — Transcript-P.6:12-25, P. 7: 1-7.]
- EXHIBIT 400 is APPENDIX 70 (Pages: 002067 to 002140.) It asks Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton to disqualify himself. The DOCKET shows it was filed at the time of the Hearing. [APPENDIX 14 – Page 000052.] Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton said “It will not be considered. [APPENDIX 82 — Page 002176.] APPENDIX 67 (Pages: 001972 to 002053) is “Plaintiff William M. Windsor’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton due to Denial of Due Process.”
- The Motion to Disqualify was docketed. [APPENDIX 14 – Page 000059.]
- The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. I have briefed this.
- Canon 3E, Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The disqualification rules require judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety: It is the established law of this State that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is the duty of the court to scrupulously guard this right of the litigant and to refrain from attempting to exercise jurisdiction in any manner where his qualification to do so is seriously brought into question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit and place the judiciary in a compromising attitude which is bad for the administration of justice. For due process and to secure Constitutional rights judges may not take the law into their own hands. But this is precisely what Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has done. He has ignored the law, ignored the facts, and claimed laws and rules provide something they do not provide, while abusing and disadvantaging me.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has a legal duty to disqualify himself.
- For due process to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has violated my rights by using his power to inflict his bias and hatred, and in his role as a key participant in colnspiring to damage me. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton hates me because I am pro se, because I have spent 14 years of my life helping other pro se plaintiffs while investigating judicial corruption, and because, unlike attorneys, I am not afraid of him, and I will identify his corrupt acts for the world to see. Today, I registered JeffreyLAshton.com, and I will be filling it with sworn facts for the world to see.
- For due process, I theoretically have the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law. Due process allegedly ensures the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights and guarantee fundamental fairness. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton violated my rights by using his power to ignore facts and the law.
- Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. Action denying the process that is “due” is unconstitutional. Inherent in the expectation of due process is that the judge will abide by the rules. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has interfered with the process and violated rules for the purpose of damaging me.
- An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has not been honest. He has violated Canon 2 and all of the other Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Due process guarantees basic fairness and to make people feel that they have been treated fairly. I have not been treated fairly. I have been treated corruptly.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has denied my rights of equal protection under the law, and his mission seems to be to bury me any way he can.
- Following the so-called Hearing on Order to Show Cause, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton entered six (6) orders against me. The volume and content of the orders seem schizophrenic. APPENDIX 8 (Pages: 000033 to 000035); APPENDIX 9 (Pages: 000039 to 000041); APPENDIX 10 (Pages: 000036 to 000038); APPENDIX 11 (Pages: 000042 to 000044); APPENDIX 12 (Pages: 000045 to 000047); AND APPENDIX 13 (Pages: 000048 to 000050).
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton did not handle the proceedings in a regular way and according to the law regarding orders to show cause.
- There is no legal authority in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration for a Circuit Court judge to issue an order to show cause in a case of auto negligence that is not criminal.
- Orange County Case # 2018-010270-O is about auto negligence. It is not a criminal case.
- I have searched Google, Yahoo, and every appellate court case in Florida history, and I can find no rule or statute to provide a legal basis for an order to show cause in this case.
- The 5DCA should have ordered Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton to vacate the Orders in APPENDIX 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. But I have found them to be just as corrupt.
- The BAR MOTION fails to meet the requirements for the entry of an injunction. This was argued in APPENDIX 40 – Pages 000609 to 000614. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton completely ignored this.
- The actions of the Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton court are a material departure from the essential requirements of law. The law on injunctions is clear. The law on a citizen’s right to represent himself is clear. Denying my rights results is a real miscarriage of justice and a denial of due process.
- The errors have caused irreparable harm to me during the proceedings. The orders violated my Constitutional rights in a way that cannot be fixed by an appeal at the end of the case. I cannot afford an attorney, so I will lose my case. I will be unable to appeal. I will likely die.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton did not handle the proceedings in a regular way and according to the law by issuing a legally deficient order to show cause.
- This is the entire content of the Order to Show Cause:
“THIS CAUSE, having come before this Court on DEFENDANTS ROBERT KEITH LONGEST AND BOISE CASCADE BUILDINGS MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION L.L.C. EMERGENCY MOTION TO REQUIRE PRO SE PLAINTIFF WILLIAM WINDSOR’S SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT BE REVIEWED, APPROVED AND SIGNED BY A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW.
“Defendants request the issuance of an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not grant the relief requested in Defendant’s Motion to require Pro Se Plaintiff, William Windsor’s submissions and/or pleadings to the Court be reviewed, approved and signed by a member of the Florida Bar; and the Court being fully advised in the premises;
“Defendant’s request for issuance of an Order to Show Cause is granted; and
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Pro Se Plaintiff, William Windsor, shall appear before this Court to show cause why the Court should not grant the relief requested in Defendant’s Motion to require Plaintiff’s submissions and/or pleadings to the Court be reviewed, approved and signed by a member of the Florida Bar. The hearing shall be held before the Honorable Jeffrey L. Ashton, via Microsoft Teams on the 5th day of April, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.
“DONE AND ORDERED at Orange County, Florida on this 1st day of March, 2021.
“(Signed) JEFFREY L. ASHTON, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE” [APPENDIX 2 – Pages: 000016 to 000018.]
- The Defendants did not request an Order to Show Cause. There is no such “Motion.” See the Docket – APPENDIX 14 – Pages: 000051 to 000073. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s Order is false. Upon information and belief, this was Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton coaching the attorneys for the Defendants on what to do.
- There was nothing attached to the Order to Show Cause, which is a requirement. [APPENDIX 2 – Pages: 000016 to 000018.]
- The only Motion by the Defendants is unsigned, unverified, and without an affidavit. [APPENDIX 36 – Pages: 000402 to 000444.]
- There are no facts stated in the Order to Show Cause constituting the reasons for the Order to Show Cause. The existence of an unsigned, unverified, unsupported Motion does not qualify.
- When an Order to Show Cause does not state the essential facts constituting the reason for the Order to Show Cause, and the Motion filed was not attached to the Order to Show Cause, it must be declared legally insufficient. I have provided the case law on this.
- In the instant case, there was an unsworn motion, and there were no sworn affidavits whatsoever.
- This cannot be fixed by an appeal at the end of the case.
- Prior to taking away Constitutional rights, a judge has an obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- I was never served with the Order to Show Cause.
- When I discovered it existed, I requested 16 hours to present my defense to the wide range of claims made by Attorney Scott L. Astrin. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied the request by email from Keitra Davis and then ignored my Motion [APPENDIX 41].
- Then he refused to consider my evidence filed and docketed. APPENDIX 14 shows the evidence was docketed. APPENDIX 82 shows Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton repeatedly refused to allow it to be admitted or considered. After the Hearing, he had the Clerk of Court remove the evidence from the DOCKET. Please take judicial notice of the DOCKET to see this. [DOCKET in 2018-CA-010270-O.]
- I have motions that have been ignored, including case dispositive motions.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has demonstrated that there isn’t an unbiased bone in his large body.
- This Affidavit of Prejudice clearly provides the facts and reasons for the belief that bias and prejudice exists. Dates, times, places, circumstances, and statements are itemized.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton established a clearly fixed view about substantive pending trial matters, so this must raise concerns about the “appearance of impropriety,” a standard that I allegedly safeguarded under applicable recusal law.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has violated my civil and Constitutional rights under color of law.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has effectively denied my rights of the equal protection under the law under Article VI of the Constitution.
- Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s actions prove that he has exercised his power in this civil action for his own personal purposes rather than the will of the law or the common decency of man.
- I am being legally raped by Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. He is prejudiced against me. He has already committed an unforgivable sin in this case by refusing to reconsider orders of Judge Kest that were issued without the required hearings. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton acts like he dislikes pro se parties and loves insurance agencies with deep pockets.
My name is William Michael Windsor. This is my story, and I’m stickin’ to it. Copyright 2013, William Michael Windsor. See http://LawlessAmerica.com, http://facebook.com/billwindsor1, and http://youtube.com/lawlessamerica.