SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution

SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 12:28:00 PM)
and it comes down to this! the government determining if the peoples trust contract is valid within the government! It simply does not get any better than this peeps! United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution Nov 13 01:55 AM US/Eastern 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.

DarkSteven -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 1:15:51 PM)
Please note that this is an article written by Windsor himself, not an impartial reporter. If Windsor is correct, then at least four plaintiffs and two judges are lying and corrupt. If Windsor is not correct, then one person is lying.

popeye1250 -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 1:42:47 PM)
This is why all judges should be elected.

MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 2:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 This is why all judges should be elected. That would make them worse...if that's possible. Oh and BTW, current Chief Justice Roberts lied through his teeth at his senate confirmation.

popeye1250 -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 3:15:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 This is why all judges should be elected. That would make them worse...if that's possible. Oh and BTW, current Chief Justice Roberts lied through his teeth at his senate confirmation. No, that would make them better judges when they know that they are responsable to The People! And Cheif Justice Roberts wasn't even on the Supreme Court and he gets the head honcho's job the first day! We need to do away with that "life-time appointment" stuff. They don't even have to come to work and you can't fire them! That's never a good thing! How would you like to see Bush or Clinton in the W.H. "for life?"

zenny -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 3:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 This is why all judges should be elected. That would make them worse...if that's possible. Oh and BTW, current Chief Justice Roberts lied through his teeth at his senate confirmation. No, that would make them better judges when they know that they are responsable to The People! And Cheif Justice Roberts wasn't even on the Supreme Court and he gets the head honcho's job the first day! We need to do away with that "life-time appointment" stuff. They don't even have to come to work and you can't fire them! That's never a good thing! How would you like to see Bush or Clinton in the W.H. "for life?" Are you going for irony by bringing up politics and saying that elected officials 'feel' or 'are' responsible to those that elect them?

popeye1250 -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 4:36:28 PM)
Well not in Massachusetts or California they're not.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Decision on Validity of the Constitution (11/14/2010 5:03:50 PM)
fr I think people tend to forget if they can even wrap their head around the kind of chicanery that has been used against the people to take over the government and replace it with a commercial or quasi-commercial corporation. If you start a corporation you can have voting workers, a treasury, a president, personel for judicial, 2 boards of directors, (one to represent the workers and one to represent the corporate interests) each parking lot can be a county and so forth and so on. If you get a job there and are a voting member of that corporation you are a member of the body politic and you could rightfully be called a citizen. While you are on usa corps parking lot and grounds that they call their territory and jurisdiction if the board of directors holds a meeting and says you will have a license to park in the and you do not do it they turn you in ot personnel and you get a fine. If you dont pay it well they hold the title which trumps your "certificate of title" giving them legal authority to simply take your car away until you pay the fine. Any corporation can do this. So in 1861 the senate adjourned sine die at which time we went on the fiat money system and that made the corporations official. Now you got a choice you can either run with the united states of america or the united states corporations or stand entirely on your own as a sovereign. Governments are basically overlays. someone draws a line on a peice of dirt and says we rule anyone inside these lines. pretty simple stuff. That said when the corporations took over the government by force in 1868 law for the most part was all written by the bankers and the BAR. No joke look it up :) So what they essentially did is commercialized everything including you... How does that relate to judges? Well all the alleged government is under the united states which is under the united states of america. Hence all judges are under a commercial for profit corporation. That being the united states and all the states created under the united states. state sovereignty is a phantom. If states were sovereign they could tell the supreme court to stick their decisions up their nose. but they cant can they? That said we are in a nutshell one big happy monarchial society and non the wiser as the texts are here but it is not taught in school. I showed everyone the judges slush funds and CRIS accounts you do not have that in a people run court for the people, only a corporate run court for the corporation. anyway I do tend to digress the long way around to prove a point? lol Then to make matters worse once a bit of corruption sets in we now have president appointed judges in the corporation judging THE PEOPLES CONSTITUTION! How will those decisions slide? For the people? sure! Why are governments formed? To protect your rights and liberties! Hows that working out? LOL It would appear that the people need to form their own judicial system and granted it would look much like the one we have only there would not be a conflict in interest. That being a paycheck from a corporation. Maybe immunity from the people as a whole or body politic in as much as suit is concerned but sue-able by the individual if they should violate the rights of the individual under the "color of law". (statutes codes and ordinances etc) other than that elected is the way to go if but even that is an unnerving thought at the education level of the people as we all know it would turn into a shit slinging political cluster fuck. I have a feeling that is the people were to judge their own constitution as it was intended and can be seen in the 7th amendment rather than the corporation this country would have quantum improvements over night. .

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125