0 votes

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void

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:

"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. 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. 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. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. 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."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-supreme-court-iss...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Joη's picture

3x

This is a duplicate thread.

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. 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.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

I thought that SCOTUS primary...

job was to strike down or approve law that was either constitutional or not. What happened to plain, understandable law that all the people can understand?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS