It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:42 AM
Open season is all i gotta say. if they wont recognize the Constitution of the founders of their country, then we the people cant recognize any of their laws

you boys in blue better run for cover

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:07 AM
Mr. Williams legal ramblings only serve to embarrass himself, there's a reason no reputable news outlet or judiciary watchdog is picking up this self-publicized faux-news "press-release" - simply put, the SCOTUS clearly did not issue a "Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void". It is a HOAX being perpetrated by one man and aided by a bunch of morons on the Web.

A suggestion for future fake "news" releases, don't try to promote your book at the same time, people aren't that dumb (discounting all those here on ATS who chose to bequeath this ridiculous post with flags)

I understand, based on looking over your site, you have an agenda to expose corrupt judges. Well alright, that's a noble cause, certainly one I think everyone here would encourage. (And there plenty of judiciary watchdogs out there).

But the more I look at your site, the more it seems to me, you are more than physically ill, you seem to have some mental issues. And I say that in all earnestness.

Your insistence, for example, that a number of judges you've named are not only corrupt but "evil", based on the fact that they have had "complaints of judicial misconduct" lodged against is absurd - as YOU were the one lodging those complaints.

Judge Orinda D. Evans is corrupt. She is actually worse than corrupt. She is a criminal, and I believe she is evil.

How any of these people or the courts haven't sued you for libel is beyond me.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:22 AM
Treply to post by anumohi

Don't post statements like that around here. This is a respectable site and I believe you are violating the terms and conditions. Discuss the topic and don't make threats to law enforcement officers. Have some respect.
edit on 22-1-2011 by devildogUSMC because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:02 AM

This is why in the next Presidential election I will cast my vote for Mitt Romney.
reply to post by Rocky Black

You can vote in the popularity contest all you want and your
vote does NOT count - that is, unless you are on the electoral
college from your state.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by Rocky Black

You lost me as soon as I saw Mitt Romney and "Honest" in the same sentence.
You do know how he made all his money, right?

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:25 AM
If the Constitution is void then that means their power is voided too. That's what I'd say if some asshole judge TRIES to deny me my unalienable, intrinsic rights. To hell with the de facto courts.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:01 PM
The entire article is bunk. I was almost convinced myself! Check around and resource the sources of these articles. There is no truth here.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:09 PM
WTF!? I just read the link in the OP. These judges are ballsy, if nothing else. Grrr..... I wish I could just "rubber stamp" traitor on their foreheads, and then boot them out into some South Pacific island owned by the French. See how the like being denied the right to fair trial by people who don't care who THEY are.

These pricks ALL need to be removed and replaced by common people. I think that is the true problem in this country. The people in power have been so long removed from the general population that they now think of themselves as a different breed of human. The entire WORLD would be better off if these piggish and narcissistic bureaucrats suddenly disappeared.

These douche-bagged elected officials think they can trample over the very document that gives them the authority to have a say in law; maybe we should trample over their damned houses!

(Had to vent that. I hate bureaucrats! They are all the same, and all useless when they are truly needed. They only work to fuel TPTB's and the NWO's (one in the same) 'black-government' agendas. Maybe a nuclear war wouldn't be such a bad thing for the human race, after all.

I will leave this post since it expresses my feelings about our nations most sacred document being 'voided' by anyone. BUT I did jump the gun without reading the rest of the posts on here. I guess I should check things out more before I fall into another HOAX again. Sorry for the brash response folks, but hey, I'm a patriot and hate to see our constitution being neglected... even in fiction :lol

edit on 1/22/2011 by Seitler because: jumped the gun!

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by devildogUSMC

I agree, the "Boys in Blue" are just normal people like us. I work with them every day, and I can honestly say that they are some of the real "constitutionalists" of this country. I am NOT talking about district chiefs and such, I am talking about the boys out there driving the cars and walking the beats. That is whom I refer to.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by LawlessAmerica
reply to post by johnny2127

Sir or Ma’am, I know exactly how rulings work. I dare say I am the leading authority in the country on judicial misconduct and judicial immunity. SCOTUS did not refuse to hear the case. They do have oversight in this matter. My petition was an ORIGINAL action in their court…not an appeal. It is only appeals over which they have retreated to a position where they ignore 99% of what is presented to them. SCOTUS issued a ruling! They issued an opinion stating that the Constitution is void on demand. They did so by considering the hundreds of pages of proof and the questions that they are obligated to answer. When they answer that they are not going to say that a federal judge cannot disregard the Constitution at will, they have ruled.

I am sorry my friend but you are very mistaken. They did not issue an opinion in your case. You can search Supreme Court cases and opinions and yours doesn't even register as a case. Why? Because they DENIED to consider your case. Denial to hear a case is not a legal opinion nor does it create new law or legal precedent.

I know you feel like a travesty of justice was perpetrated on you, and it very well may have been. But what I do know from my knowledge of the law and the Constitution, is that you did not receive an opinion from the US Supreme Court. And a denial to hear your petition does not rule anything. Again, this doesn't mean that those other judges didn't break the law or that they didn't wrong you in some way. But your conclusion that a denial to hear your case constitutes a Supreme Court opinion is just plain wrong.

It is time the moderates change this thread to HOAX. Do a very simple search of Supreme Court cases and opinions and none come up for this guy because all they did was deny to hear his case. If you want further proof this is a HOAX, as any Constitutional Attorney or Professor. A denial to hear a case does not create new law.

edit on 22-1-2011 by johnny2127 because: Spelling error

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by LawlessAmerica

I am going to cut out here... I have spent to long trying to word this... At least three hours...

I saw absolutely nothing in the case that they did that was illegal or that voids the constitution. the denial to hear the case means it had no grounds at their level... It is supposed to go through a process ...

A word response of Denial is not hearing the case... At least that was the link here..

find a way to pick the fight at the appeals level and force it to them that way...

instead of making assumptions I have to ask why you choose the methods you chose in this case.... with so many other available...

In closing yes I do know part of my way around... I have to wait till another court case is done to go back in... I have slept since then and used the brain space for other things... I stated I might be wrong on the other post...

The key piont is the nature of the reletionship between the federal judges and the magistrates...It is a dynamic that affects your case... the mags hear it first, for some reason and decide intitial issues... (the main being jurisdiction)

Good sir will you for my pleasure and with out emotion, chronical the events of your case. Now I am curious as to how they violated your rights...

Thank you

edit on 22-1-2011 by ripcontrol because: to err is human and ive been real human

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:05 PM
If a lower judge denies you your rights in court and then you take to higher which denies hearing your case, then the higher court is tacitly agreeing with the lower courts. If someone has evidence of a Constitutional infringement and a lot of evidence at that, and he can't get the courts to make a ruling, that is tacit agreement on the part of the higher court. I'm starting to believe that we don't have rights in this country anymore. If a the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling against this person who believes they've been wronged then they'd be overtly agreeing that the Constitution has no meaning. That's how I see it.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:43 PM
What a huge surprise.

We have all seen this happening for the last twenty years. A judge or really any member of law enforcement can do as they please. I see it nearly every day.

A warrant can be issued on a very small amount of evidence or a large's all dependent on how the judge or state attorney feels at the time.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:03 PM

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:04 PM
segment is about to air on ats live

hopefully we will have an end to this

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:26 PM
Listening to ats live my opinion has changed true...

He does has a case...

in case I do not get on live i want to share my thoughts sir...

have you thought of making videos for you tubes with you evidence?

It sounds like a very simple procedural issue... from what you have said on the show...

Have you thought of going back in at a lower level...

Did you request an evidenciary hearing...

well thank you for restating your case it clarified things for me...

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Ok i did not make it in to the show...

First I want to apologise... you answered a lot of my questions with your interview... But I did have some more questions...

During the evidenciary proceding she held, the hearing was in chambers with no court reporter?

If she did you can refile, do not give up sir. It is a violation of operating procedure... you did go back over the posted and offical rules of procedures for the eleventh court... If she cant prove on the record she held those parts she cant rule...

You can sue her for color of law violations... in civil court...

but I will respectfully disagree with the ending of the constitution and its values....

did you file a request for the basis of the denial?

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:54 AM
Wooooooot! I'm so HAPPY!!!! Do you know why? Because if I'm no longer a Citizen of the US of A, I no longer have to pay Federal taxes. I'd rather give it all to my State government - because I can actually see what they're doing with the money. If the Constitution is VOID, so is US Citizenship. Check it out.

IE, this won't last long. The Supreme Court is out of its jurisdiction with this ruling. The Court itself could actually be sued. This matter will be taken to the floor of the Representatives and where-by every chair in the Court should be stripped.

I guess it won't matter anyways in a few months when DOC declares Force Majeure.
edit on 23-1-2011 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by Rocky Black

Voting does not work since Kennedy. He was the last "mistake".
Here, an election clip from Romania:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:25 AM
reply to post by DjOsiris

Revolution coming

But in the meantime, I suggest we have a revolution of common sense ... and that would be a revolution indeed. How? By shaming those around us who keep voting for these clowns, puppets, & criminals. (Yes, I know the Supreme Court is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate).

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in