Federal Judges Can Void The Constitution?

Have you HEARD about this ANYWHERE?

Hey folks,

This is just plain scary. Have you heard about this?

United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution PR Newswire

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:

Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?

Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?

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.

Now you might say that you do not care about this. What does this case of one Grandpa have to do with you? A LOT. It's not necessarily JUST this case. As with a case like Roe Vs Wade.

In September 1969, one Woman, known at the time as "Jane Roe" filed a Lawsuit against Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. She, AKA, Norma L. McCorvey, pregnant with her third child, wanted an Abortion. She first attempted to scam her way into a Legal abortion by claiming she was Raped, but that was a lie. So after some doing, she got a couple of Bleeding heart Liberals to take the case. She won.

Just like this, you could say, so? What does that have to do with me? Well, NOW we know. Don't we? Now based on THAT case, it has been determined, wrongly, that a Woman has a "Right" to Murder her own Child at whim and Will. This case can have a MUCH farther reaching effect.

That Case dealt with One Woman, now ALL Women are under this precedent until Sanity prevails and it is Repelled. However, THIS case, if the Supreme Court Rules AGAINST William M. Windsor, they will set a precedent. In essence, they will indeed say that Federal Judges, which of course will include the Highest Court, will no long be bond by the Constitution. In essence, they are ruling on the Rule of Law itself. Let's Hope that they do the Right thing here.

We already have had Presidents, Administrations, and a Congress, that have circumvented, ignored, and completely VIOLATED the Constitution. Now we have a Case before the Supreme Court that could make the Constitution the great, unwavering, solidified Law it is, or null and void all together. This may not seem like much now, but how will it look in 20, 30, 40 years? That is the question we need to ask.
Peter