[Supreme Court Ruling!] Constitution is Void????

[Sentient Void]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110118/pl_usnw/CL31921_1#mwpphu-container


ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. Â These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Â Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. Â The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Â Our rights have been stolen. Â And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Â Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed."

Is this for real?

If so... well, then.. Lysander Spooner said it best...

"The Constitution either gives us the government we have, or it's powerless to prevent it; either way it is unfit to exist". - Lysander Spooner

[nobody's_hero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110118/pl_usnw/CL31921_1#mwpphu-container



Is this for real?

If so... well, then.. Lysander Spooner said it best...

"The Constitution either gives us the government we have, or it's powerless to prevent it; either way it is unfit to exist". - Lysander Spooner

I live in Georgia and I haven't heard anything about it, but I generally try to steer clear of Atlanta, and Federal judges.

[GunnyFreedom]

It looks more like a blogger/writer representing himself in some ambiguous case confusing criminal and civil matters kvetching about the SCOTUS bouncing jurisdiction. I say 'looks like' because the article is very poorly written, and after reading it some 3 or 4 times (and with, I dare say, a well above average level reading comprehension) I still can't decipher what exactly the author is trying to convey. And given the absolute lack of sense or clarity in this article I am not motivated enough to actually look up the case and the decision to see what it was all about.

Something here in this article has a screw or three loose. Maybe there really is a constitutional issue at the heart of it, maybe there is not. The 'quality' of this article frankly makes me disinterested enough to simply not care. If, as it appears, the author is a lawyer...indeed THE lawyer representing himself before the Supreme Court, (appellate court? See, more confused nonsense.) I can't say I blame any Federal court for tossing this in the rubbish bin.

You kind of have to be able to string premises together through a logical process to form conclusions...and actually have some kind of point...to make an argument before any court. I can see a panel of justices looking at each other saying "huh? WTF is this raving madmad talking about exactly?" and unable to make heads or tales of his random ramblings just shrugging their shoulders and tossing it out -- not because the case actually lacks merit (how on earth could we even know?) but because the person arguing the case can't seem to form a coherent thought.

[sailingaway]

It sounds as if the Court denied a petition for certiorari which just means they aren't going to hear the case. The text you quote says 'they must grant this petition' and that is the sort of petition that the Court gets to take a case. It doesn't mean it was decided on the merits.

[GunnyFreedom]

It sounds as if the Court denied a petition for certiorari which just means they aren't going to hear the case. The text you quote says 'they must grant this petition' and that is the sort of petition that the Court gets to take a case. It doesn't mean it was decided on the merits.

"sounds as if"

Yeah, that's my point exactly. If the article were actually written such as a lawyer who would argue in Federal Court ought to be able to communicate, then there wouldn't be any 'sounds as if.' It would be clear.

[Anti Federalist]

It looks more like a blogger/writer representing himself in some ambiguous case confusing criminal and civil matters kvetching about the SCOTUS bouncing jurisdiction. I say 'looks like' because the article is very poorly written, and after reading it some 3 or 4 times (and with, I dare say, a well above average level reading comprehension) I still can't decipher what exactly the author is trying to convey. And given the absolute lack of sense or clarity in this article I am not motivated enough to actually look up the case and the decision to see what it was all about.

Something here in this article has a screw or three loose. Maybe there really is a constitutional issue at the heart of it, maybe there is not. The 'quality' of this article frankly makes me disinterested enough to simply not care. If, as it appears, the author is a lawyer...indeed THE lawyer representing himself before the Supreme Court, (appellate court? See, more confused nonsense.) I can't say I blame any Federal court for tossing this in the rubbish bin.

You kind of have to be able to string premises together through a logical process to form conclusions...and actually have some kind of point...to make an argument before any court. I can see a panel of justices looking at each other saying "huh? WTF is this raving madmad talking about exactly?" and unable to make heads or tales of his random ramblings just shrugging their shoulders and tossing it out -- not because the case actually lacks merit (how on earth could we even know?) but because the person arguing the case can't seem to form a coherent thought.

I recall this, this case has been banging around for a while now, with same rhetoric following it.

Here is William Windsor's story as told by him:

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/my-story

He is the originator of the OP and the author of the press release.

[devil21]

Im thinking the Federal courts made the Constitution void a long time ago....

Im also going to wait until more info about this case comes out, which it inevitably will, before making any decisions on what we're seeing.

[sailingaway]

People at DP were really upset about this so I went into the Supreme Court docket to look at this and read some more stuff. I was wrong about the writ of certiorari -- what the SCOTUS denied was a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus means the SCOTUS would be ordering the lower court to take a specific action, but can only be addressed to a lower court because it is in the SCOTUS's oversight power. SCOTUS could order the court to take an appeal, or vacate a judment or something. The remedy requested instead was to reinstate a law that no longer was in effect, and to require the people of the US to exercise oversight over the courts by reading court documents. That is simply an order that goes beyond the court's power which goes only to the court system, to striking DOWN laws (it can't rewrite them) and to the specific parties under the court's jurisdiction. The court also works on law and the court record, not newly stated facts (the lower courts typically determine fact, and if someone argues there is new fact, the court orders the lower court to look at it.) In saying it wouldn't give a writ of mandamus the court wasn't saying it thinks the Constitution was void but that it didn't get justification leading it to want to interfere with the way the lower court made its decision.

I can't give more detail on that because it was enough for me and the materials were very hard to analyze on a legal basis, you kind of had to twist them to fit some actionable standard and make the argument mentally for the petitioner. this very possibly also influenced the court in denying mandamus, which is, after all, an 'extraordinary' matter. MOST cases don't get heard by the SCOTUS.