U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Deci Constitution is void

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.

At least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:

"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 Constitution at will.

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 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.

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/us-sup ... -void.html

so, one of the posters on the VisionToAmerica site put it better than I could.....

Stop the presses!

This article and the sensational headline pronouncing it lack critical information to allow anyone to fully understand what the Court allegedly did (or did not do).

First, if the only question presented was, as the article states, "Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts," well, of course the Court will deny the Petition for Cert. The question is not properly framed to present a justiciable controversy; it is vague and in the abstract - exactly what the Court doesn't want to decide (nor can it under standing precedent). Moreover, from the scant facts set forth in the article, one cannot even understand the underlying dispute. I have read the article several times, and I have no clue what the case is about. Lastly, the denial of a Petition for Certiorari is NOT a landmark decision. In fact, it is NOT even a decision on the merits at all! When SCOTUS denies a Petition for Cert., it effectively decides not to hear the case - for whatever (or no) reason. There is no ruling on the merits. It has NO precedential value. It means nothing. Denials of Cert. Petitions never give reasons for the denial (why would they?), so the fact that the Court did not offer reasons here is of no moment whatsoever. It means nothing.

The headline here is awfully misleading and clearly meant to inflame, incite and sensationalize. Let's be clear: The Supreme Court of the United States DID NOT issue a "landmark" decision holding that the "Constitution is Void." Not even close.

And here's quote from Mr. Windsor himself....

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.

Sounds like, IMO, Mr. Windsor has gone off the deep end a bit. Does he really expect that SCOTUS will take up his case when he calls the members of the court "common criminals"?