Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on Validity of Constitution (Windsor case)
Posted on 11/15/2010 7:27:33 AM PST by mbarker12474
Anybody know anything about this?
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Without The Constitution, the Supreme Court has no authority, so if they rule it void, then their ruling is without force.
OK, now what is this case really about?
Let’s hope Mark Levin covers this on his radio program, today!
Somebody forgot their morning meds?
Based solely on what’s presented here, it sounds like a pro se appeal - the questions themselves are inflammatory. Not saying these aren’t good points, but the SCOTUS prefers questions of law, not drama. Put your flamers away, I’m just saying that as a PROCEDURAL matter, it’s unhelpful to use arguments designed to inflame the passions.
My question exactly!!!
Don’t know anything about but the title alone seems laughable.
If there is no Constitution on what, then, do we base our laws?
It would mean the Courts are now in activist positions and can interpret law on their bias or even base decisions on international law.
This is a press release from the guy involved in the lawsuit. Anything from PRNewswire is a paid promotional release, not a news story.
He sounds like a loony.
Nah, too wacky for satire.
> Without The Constitution, the Supreme Court has no authority, so if they rule it void, then their ruling is without force.
True, but rational thought does not apply to lunacy.
It is quite simple actually.
The court is authorized by the Constitution. If SCOTUS rules the Constitution invalid, it rules that it is not a lawful body and is not authorized to make such a judgment.
Anybody can post anything on PR Newswire. I would want to hear about this from several other sources before believing a word of it. He filed these “petitions” this month and thinks the Supreme Court is going to hear them soon? The Supreme Court, as near as it it possible to tell from this mess of a press release, hasn’t even agreed to hear any of this, let alone issue a decision. This nothing more than a press release from a person who is desperate for personal publicity, and, frankly, a crank. Total waste of time.
Why would he cover this? He doesn’t cover the BC issue in any manner what so ever.
I’ve now looked this up:
“Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Orinda D. Evans”
Friday, 08 October 2010 00:00 William M. Windsor
“Maid of the Mist Accused of Hundreds of Counts of Perjury”
by Niagara Falls Newsline | April 27, 2009
Maid of the Mist Corporation v. Windsor...
Jul 23, 2010 ...
MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMPANY, LTD.,. Plaintiffs - Counter-. Defendants - Appellees, versus. ALCATRAZ MEDIA, LLC,. ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC. ...
Kookiness. Shouldn’t have been on Breitbart. The Supreme Court denied cert., which means that they refused to hear it.
There is no “landmark” decision forthcoming. The article is full of other fearmongering.
There are serious problems with what our courts do in real cases. Worry about them, not this one.
4. Can man-hating, racist hacks be appointed as associate justices of the Supreme Court?
IMHO it’s knowing how to choose your battles. Mark’s a whole lot smarter than this old lady, and being as I can’t go looking for that birth certificate, I will trust his judgement.
Are you not stunned by the depth of corruption on display? It’s way beyond anything we suspected, and grievous. I am not minimizing the BC issue. But, in the beginning, I saw Orly Taites (forgive spelling) interviewed, and she had kook written all over her. That has tainted this whole debate.
Its knowing how to choose your battles.
The truth will come out.
William M. Windsor, Applicant
United States, et al.
Lower Ct: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Case Nos.: (1:09-cv-2027)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 25 2010 Application (10A438) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 1 2010 Application (10A438) denied by Justice Thomas.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
William M. Windsor P.O. Box 681236
Marietta, GA 30068
Party name: William M. Windsor
Attorneys for Respondents:
Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: United States, et al.
I listen to Mark several times a wekk on my ride home and I am very disappointed that he has never addressed this issue in any helpful manner.
This guy is a nutcase and his “petitions,” which are going no where fast, are BS. Why would Mark Levin waste his time on something like this when there is so much real mischief going on today in our courts and government?
I didn’t know that. I stand rebuked. I am wiser now.
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Unfortunately, the source of the story is Mr. Winston.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, Ingram, Coulter, Beck, O’Reilly..etc. They are contemptible!
I cannot imagine the supreme court granting certiorari in a case where the legal issues are phrased so poorly. Then, when you read the article, it is clear that: (1) the supreme court denied certiorari in the appellant’s first crack in appealing from the 11th circuit decision; and (2) Those are not the issues at all—the appellant is just asking the supremes to overturn findings of fact by the trial court—something the supremes almost never do (except when a liberal majority decides that findings of fact are inconvenient to a major policy decision they want to make—and then, they just ignore them).
The appellant thinks he can make the supreme court spend it’s time on ill-framed issues that have nothing to do with the case by using a writ of mandate. It will not work.
Geee, where have I heard that term “talking bobble heads” before. :-)
They IMHO have damaged their creds over this issue for sure. But it appears that Rush is starting to come to the dance.
What we have here is a barking mad lunatic who got sued and lost. He then developed a litigious obsession, and continues filing one frivolous motion, appeal and lawsuit after another, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. He thinks that the fact that he lost and keeps losing is inconceivable in a just world, and therefore proves in and of itself that the entire structure of the government is corrupt and a lie. In his demented imagination, him losing is incompatible with ordered liberty. In a word, it is unconstitutional for him to lose. Thus, his statement of the issue.
This guy makes Orly Taitz look like Antonin Scalia.
Nuts like him are a dime a dozen and can be found in any courthouse in the US. He’s just like every other nut who loses who cannot accept that reality, and persist in filing papers until they get sick, die or are otherwise prevented from carrying on. It’s part of their delusion. It is definitely not news.
Insanity takes many forms, and this is just one of them.
This is where being a Christian is good for one’s mental health. We are commanded by Jesus to forgive. Turn the matter over to Him. Bitterness is like drinking poison and hoping the other guy will die.
By the way...I have lived long enough to see that those who perpetrate injustice most often (eventually) come to a mean spirited lonely end, abandoned even by their families.
Polls show that nearly 60% of the American public now have questions about Obama’s eligibility narrative. Even the liberal media are beginning to take pot shots at Obama over this.
Who knows? Maybe we will have a rare instance of God bringing timely justice.
Very, very well said.
To be clear, No. 31 is the one I like.
You do not seem to have any legal knowledge. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are not appeals that get granted or denied. Only 1.1% of the 2009 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court only grants cert if they like the idea that the case may result in an important precedent. My legal issues have not been phrased poorly. I call a spade a spade, and I back up everything with massive uncontroverted evidence and overwhelming case law.
My petitions for writ of mandamus ask The Supreme Court to issue a ruling (which they have to do on mandamus) as to whether judges can void the Constitution. It won’t make the Constitution go away. It is all about the absolute fact that we no longer have Constitutional rights because the names judges don’t care about the Constitution or laws. All of the federal judges in Atlanta need to be impeached and indicted.
Read some of what’s on www.LawlessAmerica.com, and perhaps you will learn a few things.
Here are the legal issues that you said were worded poorly:
1. Whether appellate courts should provide decisions that consist of more than one sentence.
2. Whether federal judges can be allowed to commit perjury, obstruction of justice, and fraud upon the courts.
3. Whether the Constitution guarantees citizens a fair trial and an impartial judge.
4. Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its supervisory powers because the lower courts have departed so far from the accepted and usual course of proceedings.
As the owner/publisher of large magazine publishing companies for 15 years, what exactly was worded poorly? The issues were failure to issue more than one word decision, massive fraud upon and by the courts, and Constitutional violations galore.
“You do not seem to have any legal knowledge. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are not appeals that get granted or denied.”
I practiced law for 25 years. I am admitted to practice before the US Supreme court and several federal circuits, Federal District courts all over the country, and the Supreme Courts of three States. I have a number of reported appellate decisions—most of which I won. I have also had Petitions for Cert granted and denied.
I note that the issues described in the article, which you posted, were: “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?”
I’m not sure why the original issues on appeal in the article you posted are completely different from the issues on appeal you describe in the post to which this is a response. The issues I just quoted from your article are not well-framed issues. The new issues you just described in your post are somewhat better. But it does not surprise me that the supreme court denied cert on either set of issues as framed.
Sorry, but I refuse to believe that you are an attorney. But I guess it does make some sense. The attorneys are almost all dishonest. Please give us the case link on your petitions for cert that were granted so we can see for ourselves.
The reason the news release is worded somewhat differently is because it was written for the general public so they could understand it.
The Supreme Court has not denied cert; they have docketed the Petitions for Writ of MANDAMUS. 10-632 and 10-633. The questions for The Supreme Court are perfect. The issue is whether they are corrupt like the other judges are. The message has been delivered to them loud and clear. And the Appendixes have all the evidence, though they don’t really need to read more than a page or two.
Tell me this, attorney:
What is the law on a summary judgment? If the key fact issue in a case is disputed with sworn testimony from each side, can there be a summary judgment? (Judge Evans and the Eleventh Circuit said disputed fact issues don’t matter.)
If one party never files a sworn affidavit, never admits any documents into evidence, and has no deposition or hearing testimony, can a judge properly claim that this party proved the necessary facts? (All of the judges have issued or upheld fact-specific orders where there was never any admissible evidence of any type from those who prevailed on the motions.)
Is there anything wrong if a judge makes over 200 false statements in an order, statements proven false by the record? (Eleventh Circuit repeatedly issued orders indicating that they believe the judge, even though everything is documented to show where the evidence is in the record that proves the perjury by the judge.)
What is the requirement of a Verified Complaint. Must the person swearing that everything is true and correct based upon his personal knowledge be truthful? Or can he say its is all true when it isn’t? (The entire Verified Complaint was proven false with the deposition testimony of the company’s managers, but all of the judges chose to overlook that absolutely slam dunk essential information.)
What do you say about a judge who ignores the testimony in depositions admitting that the verified the complaint was false (and was never amended)?
I could go on with hundreds of examples. Corrupt federal judges. The Supreme Court either acts, or we all know we are in even worse trouble than we thought.
So, get a life, sport or sportette.
Somebody take this and run with it.