Tag: Boise Cascade

Jeff Ashton D-Day

Jeff Ashton Stages D-Day

Jeff Ashton is ready for D-Day (Dismiss Day).  The most corrupt judge in Central Florida continues to commit crimes against innocent people.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND

FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

WILLIAM WINDSOR,                                             CASE NO. 2018-CA-010270-O

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT KEITH LONGEST, an individual, and BOISE CASCADE BUILDING MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C., a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO STRIKE APRIL 19, 2023 HEARING; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS; MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS; AND RESPONSE TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS

COMES NOW, William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or “Plaintiff”), and files Plaintiff’s Verified EMERGENCY MOTION to Strike April 19, 2023 HEARING; Motion for Sanctions against Defendants and their Attorneys; Motion to Strike Pleadings of Defendants; and Response to Motion of Defendants.  Windsor shows the Court as follows:

  1. There are many reasons why the April 19, 2023 Hearing must be stricken.
  2. WINDSOR’s life has been destroyed by the accident that brought this case and the intentional infliction of emotional distress aftermath.
  3. The Defendants have lied and lied and lied. Judges have let them get away with it.
  4. The attorneys for the Defendants have committed literally hundreds of violations of the Rules. Judges have let them get away with it.
  5. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton has demonstrated a variety of ways to violate due process, violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, and violate laws. He has made false statements to damage WINDSOR. [EXHIBIT 2823.] [EXHIBIT 2824.]  The Court is asked to take judicial notice of Case No. 6D23-2220 in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Sixth District.  All exhibits to EXHIBIT 2823 hereto are filed there.  The Court is also asked to take judicial notice of Case No. 6D23-2069 in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Sixth District.  All exhibits to EXHIBIT 2824 hereto are filed there.
  6. WINDSOR has never lied, and he has never knowingly violated a law or a rule.
  7. When WINDSOR comes to a stop sign in the middle of nowhere, he comes to a full stop before the sign. He hasn’t had a traffic or parking ticket since September 25, 1995. [EXHIBIT 3001.]  He had never been in a traffic accident before 05/05/2017.

 

A COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER A PARTY IN BANKRUPTCY TO SPEND MONEY THAT HE DOESN’T HAVE OR ISN’T ALLOWED TO USE AS JUDGE JEFFREY l. ASHTON HAS DONE.

  1. As Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is well aware, WINDSOR is in bankruptcy; the bankruptcy court will not pay for an attorney; WINDSOR cannot afford an attorney because all of his assets except his monthly social security check are in the Bankruptcy Estate; and he has been unable to get an attorney to work for free.
  2. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton can’t order WINDSOR to violate the federal bankruptcy statutes and a court order.
  3. The Court is asked to take judicial notice of federal bankruptcy statutes and Case # 6-21-bk-04061 in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida.

 

JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON HAS IGNORED EVERYTHING

RELATIVE TO A TRIAL

  1. On 10/21/2022, the Uniform Order Setting this Case for Jury Pre-Trial set the Pre-Trial Conference for April 10, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. [EXHIBIT 3922.] But absolutely nothing has been done regarding the pre-trial by the judge and essentially nothing by the Defendants. [2018-CA-010270-O DOCKET.]

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #1

  1. On 10/21/2022, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton ordered the Defendants to disclose the expert witnesses the Defendants actually intended to testify within 15 days following the Plaintiff’s disclosure. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.2 ¶5(b).] On 01/17/2023, WINDSOR filed his Amended Expert Witness List.
  2. The Defendants failed to file an expert witness list following WINDSOR’s disclosure. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #2

  1. On 03/27/2023, the Defendants were to serve a List of All Witnesses and provide name, address, and telephone number. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶6(a).]
  2. The Defendants failed to serve the list as specified. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #3

  1. On 03/27/2023, the Defendants were to serve a schedule of all exhibits, including depositions, a party may offer at trial, lettered sequentially. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶6(b).]
  2. The Defendants failed to serve the schedule. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #4

  1. Not later than 03/11/2023, the Defendants were to provide deposition designations. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(a).]
  2. The Defendants failed to make the designations. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #5

  1. Not later than 03/21/2023, the Defendants were to serve counter or fairness designations. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(a).]
  2. The Defendants failed to give the Plaintiff his right to serve counter or fairness designations. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #6

  1. Not later than 03/21/2023, the Defendants were to exchange proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(b).]
  2. The Defendants failed to exchange proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #7

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a Face-to-Face Meeting was scheduled to be held, but the Defendants were no-shows. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c).]
  2. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #8

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to Discuss and attempt to settle the case, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c)(1).]
  2. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #9

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held for the Defendants to produce all documents to be offered at trial. Exhibits had to be Bates stamped.
  2. WINDSOR prepared his documents, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c)(2).]
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #10

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to “examine, and initial every exhibit to be produced by the opposing side(s) at trial. The Parties shall agree on those exhibits which will be admitted as joint exhibits and those which can be admitted without objection.”
  2. WINDSOR prepared his documents and was ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c)(3).]
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #11

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held where the parties shall then identify all other exhibits and specify any objections thereto. “Exhibit Schedules” shall then be prepared reflecting these separate categories of exhibits for each Party. The Exhibit Schedules for each party shall be attached to the Joint Pre-Trial Statement described below. OBJECTIONS NOT NOTED ARE WAIVED. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3-4, ¶7(c)(3).]
  2. WINDSOR prepared his documents and was ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c)(3).]
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

 Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #12

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to review opposing parties’ witness lists. “Witness lists for each Party shall be attached to the Joint Pre-Trial Statement….” [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶7(c)(4).]
  2. WINDSOR prepared his lists and was ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #13

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to discuss and stipulate to any facts requiring no proof at trial. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶7(c)(5).]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #14

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to discuss, clarify and frame all factual issues of fact to be tried. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶7(c)(6).]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #15

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to identify all legal, procedural or evidentiary issues to be decided prior to or during trial. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶7(c)(7).]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #16

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to discuss any evidentiary stipulations. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c)(8).]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #17

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to agree upon and draft a concise statement of the case to be read by the Court at of voir dire. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.3 ¶7(c)(9).]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #18

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to discuss the proposed jury instructions (voir dire through closing) and verdict forms. Discuss whether the Court will instruct the jury on the law prior to opening statements and, if so, which jury instructions are to be read at that time. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶ 7(c)10.]
  2. The parties shall prepare the following:
  3. All Agreed Jury Instructions, including Supreme Court instructions for, if applicable, voir dire, instructions prior to opening, instructions prior to closing argument and instruction(s) following closing arguments [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶ 7 (c)10(i).]
  4. (ii.) All disputed instructions identifying the Party proposing it/them and the phase of the Trial for which the instruction is proposed. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶ 7 (c)10(ii).]
  5. (iii.) The above versions of Jury Instructions shall be prepared to include a cover page reflecting the style of the case, an appropriate title, with instructions following in paragraph form without Jury Instruction numbers, headers or brackets. Instructions shall be 14-point, Times New Roman and double spaced. Pages shall be numbered. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.4 ¶ 7 (c)10(iii).]
  6. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  7. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #19

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to discuss and attempt to agree upon any other matters leading to a more orderly and expeditious trial. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.5 ¶ 7 (c)11.]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #20

  1. No later than 03/26/2023, a discussion face-to-face was to be held to discuss and exchange all demonstrative aids. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.5 ¶ 7 (c)12.]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants were no-shows and made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #21

  1. No later than 04/01/2023, a Pre-Trial Statement was to be served by the Defendants’ attorney. [EXHIBIT 3922, PP.5, 6 ¶8.]
  2. WINDSOR was prepared and ready, but the Defendants made no such attempt.
  3. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #22

  1. On 03/31/2023, a Joint Pre-Trial Conference was scheduled, but the Defendants were no-shows. [EXHIBIT 3922, P.2 ¶3.]
  2. This is Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #23

AND JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON

  1. On 03/11/2023, there was a Motions Cut-Off-Deadline. [EXHIBIT 3922, PP.5, 6 ¶10.]
  2. Judge Jeffrey L Ashton did not hear WINDSOR’s motions prior to this DEADLINE.
  3. The Defendants filed the motion scheduled for hearing on 04/19/2023 on 03/24/2023, so it is void as it was filed after the Motions Cut-Off-Deadline. See 2018-CA-010270-O DOCKET, 03/24/2023.

 

Violation of a Court Order by the Defendants #23

  1. On 04/04/2023, WINDSOR received a copy of an email to Keitra Davis from Renee Urban for the Defendants. It said:

“We have on our calendar the Pre-Trial Conference in this case set for Monday, April 10, 2022, at 9:00am. Can you please advise if this will be going forward, or if this will be cancelled as Plaintiff has not complied with Judge Ashton’s Order directing him to obtain counsel?” [EXHIBIT 2816.]

 

  1. There was no response.
  2. WINDSOR did not receive notice of the hearing and did not attend what he assumed was not taking place.
  3. Since the Defendants learned something and did not notify WINDSOR, this should be considered a violation of a court order.

 

THE DEFENDANTS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION BY FAILING TO SIGN THE MOTION

  1. The motion to dismiss is unsigned and must be stricken.
  2. A signature is not optional. The signature is much more than a person’s name.
  3. There is the required signature on the Certificate of Service, but NOT on the MOTION. EVERY filing by WINDSOR will show he always properly signed. [2018-CA-010270-O DOCKET.]
  4. 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:

 

(1) the attorney has read the document;

(2) to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information; and belief, there is good ground to support the document;

(3) the document is not interposed for delay; and

(4) 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.”

 

  1. Therefore, there is no proof that Attorney Jonathan Blake Mansker read the motion, and there is no certification that; to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support the motion.
  2. There are many cases where pleadings were declared nullities because they were· not properly signed.

See Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding a notice of appeal signed by a non-attorney corporate officer a nullity); Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (reversing summary judgment in favor of corporate housing authority, holding its complaint signed and filed by a non-attorney void); Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966) (affirming trial court’s striking of plaintiff corporation’s complaint holding the complaint a nullity where it was filed and signed by the corporation’s non-attorney president).

  1. But with the filings in this case, there are no signatures at all.
  2. This Court must sanction Attorney Jonathan Blake Mansker and the Defendants for this filing. This Court must vacate all orders granted with unsigned motions and strike their pleadings.

 

The MOTION alleges facts,

But it is not verified and must be stricken.

  1. The Defendants’ Motion makes claims of fact in many paragraphs.
  2. There is no affidavit, and claims of facts must be stricken.
  3. Attorneys may not present facts, only legal arguments.

“Argument by counsel who is not under oath is not evidence.” See Murphy v. State, 667 So.2s 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); State v. T.A., 528 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); McKenney v. State, 967 So.2d 951, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2375 (Fla.App. Dist.3 10/03/2007); Steinhardt v. InterCondominium Group, 771 So.2d 614, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2713 (Fla.App. Dist.4 11/22/2000); SVI Capital, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 164 So.3d 36, 40 Fla.L.Weekly D 931 (Fla.App. Dist.4 04/22/2015); Daughtrey v. Daughtrey, 944 So.2d 1145, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D3080 (Fla.App. Dist.2 12/08/2006).)

“A trial court may not rely on argument by counsel to make factual determinations. Ordonez v. State, 862 So.2d 927, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also State v. Thompson, 852 So.2d 877, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that argument of counsel is not evidence); DiSarrio v. Mills, 711 So.2d 1355, 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (‘Argument by counsel who is not under oath is not evidence.’).” (State v. Jones, 30 So.3d 619, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D583 (Fla.App. Dist.2 03/12/2010).)

 

“A trial court may not rely on argument by counsel to make factual determinations.” State v. Jones, 30 So.3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (first citing Ordonez v. State, 862 So.2d 927, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); then citing State v. Thompson, 852 So.2d 877, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that argument of counsel is not evidence); and then citing DiSarrio v. Mills, 711 So.2d 1355, 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Argument by counsel who is not under oath is not evidence.”). (State v. Crumbley, 2D16-3872, 2D16-3875 (Fla.App. Dist.2 05/23/2018).)

 

 

FORGERY, FRAUD, AND ORHER CRIMES by the Defendants

  1. On 04/08/2023, WINDSOR logged in to the Florida E-Filing System.  He happened to notice the email addresses displaying next to his name as the filer.  It showed Jonathan Blake Mansker and his assistant, Renee Urban. [EXHIBIT 2819.] He is the attorney for the Defendants and she is his assistant in this case.  They are two of the last people on earth whose email addresses WINDSOR would use on HIS ACCOUNT against them and Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton.  Someone committed FORGERY and other crimes by giving control of WINDSOR’s filings to Jonathan Blake Mansker and Renee Urban.  WINDSOR had to set up a new account to be able to e-file.
  2. If any emails were sent to “Windsor” from 04/04/2023 to 6:30 p.m. on 04/08/2023, they went to the attorneys for the Defendants and were not copied to WINDSOR.
  3. But at 9:40 a.m. on 04/10/2023, WINDSOR received a copy of an email to Keitra Davis from Renee Urban for the Defendants. It said:

“Good Morning – Pursuant to Judge Ashton’s instructions at this morning’s Pre-Trial Conference, please find the attached Notice of Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, along with a copy of the Motion.” [EXHIBIT 2817.]

 

  1. WINDSOR was shocked. He knew nothing about a hearing.  The purported motion attached was unreadable.  WINDSOR requested a readable copy but there was no response.
  2. This is a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and Blake Mansker and Renee Urban must be reported to law enforcement for these crimes.

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS

AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

  1. The Uniform Order for Setting the Case for Jury Trial provides for SANCTIONS. Failure to attend the meeting of attorneys required in paragraph 7(c), the Pre-Trial Conference, or trial or to otherwise strictly comply with the requirements of this Order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, contempt, dismissal, default, striking of pleadings, exclusion of evidence, assessment of fees or costs. [EXHIBIT 3922, PP.7 ¶14.]
  2. As shown above, the Defendants and their attorneys failed to attend and failed to strictly comply with the requirements of the Order.
  3. The violations are egregious.
  4. WINDSOR moves the Court to charge the Defendants and their attorneys with contempt, strike their pleadings, exclude and deny any evidence of the Defendants, and find for the Plaintiff on the issues of liability.

 

JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A

SECRET PRE-TRIAL HEARING, AND IT MUST BE STRICKEN

  1. On 04/10/2023, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton purportedly held a hearing in this case. It was allegedly a Pre-Trial Conference.  It was kept a secret from WINDSOR, but the 10/21/2022 Order says parties SHALL attend.  [EXHIBIT 3922, P.2 ¶5(b).]
  2. On 04/10/2023 at 9:34 a.m., a DOCKET entry was made with a Notice of Hearing. [EXHIBIT 2821.] The notice did not specify what matter was to be heard.
  3. On 04/10/2023 at 11:23 a.m., WINDSOR sent an email to Keitra Davis, Jeff Ashton, Tiffany Moore Russell, Lisa Shorten, Blake Mansker, Patty Nielsen, Steven Kranz, Scott Warburton, and Deputy Phillip McCord. [EXHIBIT 2820.] It said:

“I was not informed of a Pre-Trial Hearing.  The order from 10/21/2022 set the date, but the 4/4/2023 email to Ms. Davis requesting directions on whether there would be a hearing was never responded to unless the response went to the person or persons who forged and stole my e-filing account.

 

“Please show me emails of all notifications that there was a hearing.  I believe a party is obligated to attend, I darn sure would have been there.

 

“Please send me the name and contact information for the court reporter.

 

“None of the other prerequisites were complied with by the Defendants.  There has been no designation of depositions, no meeting on jury instructions, no schedule of exhibits, no live meeting, no joint pre-trial statement, and violations galore.

 

“This motion or whatever it is is past the court-ordered deadline set in writing on 2/21/2023.

 

“Today’s filing violates the Court’s 2/21/2023 order.  I move that all of the Defendants filings and Answer be stricken due to violation of court orders.

 

“The Notice of Hearing is false.  It specifies nothing to be heard, and I am not self-represented.  I have been denied that Constitutional right, and this is on appeal.

 

“A case may not be dismissed when on appeal.  Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9130 (f) Stay of Proceedings. In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a nonfinal order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing, except that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause….

 

“Please vacate all of this.

 

“I am filing additional criminal charges.  I extended the courtesy of calling Renee Urban today to give her the opportunity to deny that she was involved in the forgery and theft of my e-filing account.  She refused to answer and refused to connect me with the Mansker.  If Mansker doesn’t call me, I will take that as an indication of guilt.  I will file criminal charges this week.

 

“Ms. Davis, were you involved in the forgery and theft?  Was Barry5515?

 

“Please have Jonathan Blake Mansker call me.  We have never spoken by phone.  His assistant was unwilling to ask him to return my call.”

 

  1. Windsor never received a response to any of these issues from any of the recipients.
  2. Windsor never received any emails of all notifications that there was a hearing as he requested.
  3. Windsor never received the name and contact information for the court reporter as he requested.
  4. None of the other prerequisites were complied with by the Defendants.
  5. The Notice of Hearing is false.  It specifies nothing to be heard, and Windsor is not self-represented.  Windsor has been denied that Constitutional right, and this is on appeal.
  6. On 04/14/2023, Jury Instructions were due, but the Defendants failed to provide anything or respond to Windsor’s request.

 

A case may not be dismissed when on appeal.

  1. A case may not be dismissed when on appeal.  Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9130 (f) Stay of Proceedings. In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a nonfinal order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing, except that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause….
  2. The Florida Supreme Court has explained that “the test employed by the appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate terminate of the cause as between the parties directly affected.” L.T. Warehouse Co., 304 So. 2d at 99.
  3. WINDSOR is filing additional criminal charges.  I extended the courtesy of calling Renee Urban today to give her the opportunity to deny that she was involved in the forgery and theft of my e-filing account.  She refused to answer and refused to connect me with the Mansker.  If Mansker doesn’t call me, I will take that as an indication of guilt.  I will file criminal charges this week.
  4. WINDSOR emailed Keitra Davis to ask: “Ms. Davis, were you involved in the forgery and theft?  Was Barry5515? There was no response.
  5. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton abused his discretion repeatedly in this case.
  6. WINDSOR was never served with a Notice of Hearing on 04/10/2023. The magnitude of the violations by the DEFENDANTS is extreme.  See the Affidavit of WINDSOR filed on 2/20/2023. [EXHIBIT 2824.]
  7. Windsor moves that all of theDefendants filings and Answer be stricken due to violation of court orders.

RESPONSE TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS

  1. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. It violated a number of ordered and rules, and it is simply false and unfounded.
  2. WINDSOR has now lost the use of both hands for typing, so he does not have time to respond to this bogus Motion.

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, WINDSOR moves the Court for an order striking the setting of an April 19, 2023 hearing; providing all the relief requested above; striking all unsupported statements of fact; striking all unauthenticated exhibits; striking the pleadings of the DEFENDANTS; and granting such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper.

This 18th day of April 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108