PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution



Ares
19th November 2010, 09:26 AM
ATLANTA, Nov. 13, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.

The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?


These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).

Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a 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 all 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 in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. 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).

Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."

Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.

Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"

Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and 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."

The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.

For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20101113.CL01025

Hatha Sunahara
19th November 2010, 09:46 AM
I haven't even the smallest doubt that the Supremes will formalize the shredding of the Constitution with this decision. It's part of the NWO agenda.

What will surprise me will be if the public even notices this. I expect the media to not cover it. I never heard of this case until I read it here.

I have a particular disgust with the 'judges' in this country. Unelected, unaccountable dictators whose job it is to protect the rich people who own them from the people, and to fatten the wallets of their masters. There is no freedom and no justice here in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Hatha

keehah
19th November 2010, 10:36 AM
Regarding the chatter of ways to take America back from the Globalists:
Would this then formalize the knowledge that the DC operators are illegal, i.e. do not act under the US constitution?
Would this then allow a Congress or body to form proposing to support the real constitution (with the support of the military)?

midnight rambler
19th November 2010, 10:38 AM
Regarding the chatter of ways to take America back from the Globalists:
Would this then formalize the knowledge that the DC operators are illegal, i.e. do not act under the US constitution?
Would this then allow a Congress or body to form proposing to support the real constitution (with the support of the military)?




Seriously, you guys need to be listening to Rod Class. Next show is tonight on www.talkshoe.com - search for AIB radio.

palani
19th November 2010, 10:40 AM
Matters such as require Article III courts are generally referred to a file cabinet that has marked on it "CASES TO BE SETTLED AFTER THE END OF LINCOLNS (UN)CIVIL WAR IF ANYONE IS STILL LEFT ALIVE".

7th trump
19th November 2010, 10:40 AM
How the hell can the SC shred the very document that allows the existence of the SC in the first place.
Does this mean all Americans can elect to participate in SS.
I mean the IRS says its the 14th amendment that allows the authority of the IRS to collect taxes.

TheNocturnalEgyptian
19th November 2010, 11:09 AM
MANDAMUS

The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command. It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice.Mandamus is not a writ of right, it is not consequently granted of course, but only at the discretion of the court to whom the application for it is made; and this discretion is not exercised in favor of the applicant, unless some just and useful purpose may be answered by the writ.This writ was introduced io prevent disorders from a failure of justice; therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. Mandamus will not lie where the law has given another specific remedy.The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, and, therefore constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but a mandamus directed to a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction, and by the constitution, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court is restricted to certain specified cases, which do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section, authorizing this writ to be issued by the supreme court to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, is, therefore, not warranted by the constitution and void.The circuit courts of the United States may also issue writs of mandamus, but their power in this particular is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

Twisted Titan
19th November 2010, 06:45 PM
The federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdy_dArmMQs

Cebu_4_2
19th November 2010, 06:50 PM
There is nothing to shred, the constitution was gone after the Civil war, never came back but the defacto introduced another constitution that was not ratified.... am I crazy or are you guys missing something? Any more of this crap and Ill just get them to turn the tee-vee back on and not use the internet.