Monday, November 15, 2010

Does the United States still have a Constitution, or not?

That is the question the Supreme Court will answer, one way or another, in the case of William M. Windsor v. Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al. (Case No. 10-411, docketed Sept. 24).

Facts of the case, as reported by PRWire via

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 (writ of certoriari 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.

The link includes links to additional sites for those who are interested in the details. The case has been dragged through the courts for the last four years; but in essence, Mr. Windsor appears to have been stonewalled throughout the process.

The bottom line is, if the Supreme Court rules in Mr. Windsor's favor, it will open up charges of judicial corruption throughout the U.S. court system down to the district court in Atlanta. If the Supreme Court fails to rule at all, the above-named Constitutional provisions are effectively repealed.

There are no action items at this time -- the case will have to run its course -- but if the Supreme Court in essence rules against the Constitution, we will need to consider whether the Constitution can even work, since it anticipated three co-equal branches of government, all observing it as the supreme law of the land.

Virtual buckeye to Andrew Scott McCleese in Facebook.

No comments: