Friday, January 21, 2011

Are You Sure That We Have A Legitimate Legal System Left In America? I’m Not!

Are You Sure That We Have A Legitimate Legal System Left In America? I’m Not!

“Dick Cheney Is An Unindicted War Criminal” Ron Reagan Jr


ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- 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.

Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:

"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter.  These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons.  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 Constitutional at will.

William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006.  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 stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it 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, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist.  

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).

After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit.  All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.

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.

"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced.  Our rights have been stolen.  And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges.  Heaven help us.

"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place.  I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on soon.  The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed."

For more information, see

Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094,

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

By Jed Lewison | Daily Kos

<script type="text/javascript" src="">


On the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, which overturned nearly a century of restrictions on campaign spending, a progressive group has asked the Department of Justice to look into "conflicts of interest" two justices may have had when issuing the ruling.

In a petition to be sent to the department this week, Common Cause will argue that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves from the campaign finance decision because of their involvement with Koch Industries, a corporation run by two conservative activists who many say directly benefited fromCitizens United.

"It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision," the letter alleges, as quoted at Politico.

The group will urge the department to disqualify Scalia and Thomas from the ruling. If that were to happen, the Supreme Court could vacate the ruling, effectively returning the campaign finance restrictions that existed until 2010. But, as Common Cause itself admits, the odds are against it.

At the center of the group's claims is a document from Koch Industries unearthed last fall by ThinkProgress and the New York Times. In an invitation to a Palm Springs retreat to be held this month, Charles Koch boasted that previous events were attended by Scalia and Thomas.
If Scalia or Thomas attended a Koch event between 2008 and 2010, when the court was dealing with issues affecting Citizens United, "it would certainly raise serious issues of the appearance of impropriety and bias," the Commons Cause petition states, as quoted in the New York Times.

Since the Citizens United ruling, many critics have focused on the role of the Koch brothers in US politics, arguing that the oil-business billionaires have placed themselves at the nexus of big business and conservative politics.

The Koch brothers are generally believed to be behind Americans for Prosperity, a group that has been accused of distorting facts in campaigning against health care reform and climate change legislation. President Obama last fall referred to the group as an example of how Citizens United has allowed large corporations to use political groups to funnel unlimited amounts of money into campaigns.

"They don't have to say who, exactly, Americans for Prosperity are," Obama said. "You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation [or even] a big oil company."

Steven Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU, told the Times that Common Cause's campaign is "a steep uphill climb ... but not an insurmountable one." He suggested that even if the effort failed, it would still allow for a "public airing" of concerns surrounding the Supreme Court's impartiality.
But Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine, had far less faith in Common Cause's effort.

"I am a big critic of the Citizens United case. I would love to see it reversed," Hasen told Politico. "But this approach seems both unlikely to yield the desired result of seeing the case overturned and appears to be an unwarranted attack on the ethics of the Justices."

Hasen noted, "Justice Scalia has refused to recuse himself from cases involving a far closer relationship."

Arn H. Pearson, a Common Cause vice president, made it clear that the group doesn't see its effort as an open-and-shut case.

"We're treading in new territory here for us," he told the Times. "But a situation like this raises fundamental questions about public confidence in the Supreme Court."

Washington (CNN) -- The prime suspect in the WikiLeaks case, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, is being mistreated in detention, his lawyer asserts.
Manning has been behind bars since July at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, charged with leaking classified government documents, including a classified military video of an attack in Iraq that was posted online by WikiLeaks.

The Army claims Manning illegally downloaded secret files from a government computer network while he was serving as a low-level intelligence office at a small base in Iraq between November 2009 and May 2010, when he was arrested.

His lawyer, David Coombs, formally objected to Manning's treatment, filing an Article 138 complaint Wednesday, according to a posting on the lawyer's blog. Manning has been in solitary confinement and for part of this week was again placed on suicide watch by the Quantico brig commander, according to his lawyers.

"He was stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His prescription eyeglasses were taken away from him," Coombs wrote in the blog entry. "He was forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that he was reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, his glasses were returned to him."

Manning was taken off suicide watch after two and a half days, after a review of the situation by the Army Staff Judge Advocate's office.
Under a less restrictive condition, called prevention of injury watch, Manning is confined to his cell 23 hours a day with no pillow, sheets or personal items, according to Coombs.

His only exercise, according to his lawyer, is when he is taken to an empty room and allowed to walk. When he sleeps me must strip to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.

Quantico public affairs officer Lt. Brian Villiard said under military rules he could not confirm whether the complaint had been received. He said all the conditions of Manning's confinement are in line with his maximum custody status and to prevent Manning from harming himself.

"He is not being treated any differently than anyone else in maximum custody," Villiard said. "We're not treating him any differently than anyone who could pose a risk to life, property or national security."

In December, a Pentagon spokesman said that even under the restrictive conditions, Manning is allowed to converse with other prisoners, receive visitors and exercise for an hour a day. In addition, Manning has pillows and sheets made from a material that cannot be torn into strips, according to Villiard.

The next step in Manning's case will be a "706 board" to determine whether Manning is mentally competent to stand trial.

Lt. Col. Robert Manning of the Military District of Washington said he expects that board to convene "within the near future." Depending on the outcome, that could be followed by an evidentiary hearing and, possibly, a full court-martial.

Oliver North’s Pre-Trial Conditions For UCMJ Violations Dramatically Different Than Bradley Manning’s

Facebook Fights U.S. Pressure Over WikiLeaks

Cranberry Firm: Wikileaks Actively Searched For Documents


A Cranberry Internet security company says it turned over evidence to the government that WikiLeaks actively siphoned documents with file-sharing programs typically used to download music and movies.

Scott Harrer, a spokesman for Tiversa Inc., which monitors peer-to-peer networks for companies that pay for its services, said its analysts witnessed broad and specific searches for documents from Swedish computers that appeared on WikiLeaks' website a few months later.

"We've been aware of them since the first day or week they've been around," Harrer said. "In many cases, we've seen examples of files that we saw on peer-to-peer networks, whether it was through an investigation or one of our analysts came across it, and we've seen those posted on WikiLeaks by quote 'an inside source.'"

WikiLeaks, which is primarily based in Sweden and describes itself as a not-for-profit media organization, is best known for making public classified government information. It is at the center of a criminal investigation by a U.S. grand jury in Virginia over the release of tens of thousands of diplomatic cables and other secret information.

Mark Stephens, a London-based attorney for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in an e-mail that Tiversa's accusation that WikiLeaks actively sought documents it later posted online is "false." Assange is in the United Kingdom fighting extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual molestation and rape unrelated to his work with WikiLeaks.

This is not Tiversa's first foray into international Internet security. The company, which conducted investigative searches on behalf of U.S. agencies, including the FBI, discovered in March 2009 that someone in Iran shared a file on potentially sensitive data about a helicopter in President Obama's fleet. Tiversa informed the defense contractor responsible for the leak, which took the file off the peer-to-peer network, but not before at least one person in Iran had copied it.

Peer-to-peer networks are plagued with cyber thieves looking for sensitive information, said Court Little, a senior security strategist for the Internet security firm Solutionary, which has an office in Bloomfield.
"As long as people are sharing files, there are other people trolling the Internet, trolling these services looking to steal information," said Little, who works at the company's headquarters in Omaha. "It's an easy window to get in."

Harrer said most people who install file-sharing programs don't realize they could be exposing information for the world to see.

"I equate it to a lost laptop. The peer-to-peer is essentially 500 million lost laptops. But with a lost laptop, you know you've lost your laptop. With file-sharing programs, you may not know all your information is viewable," he said.

Tiversa frequently finds tax returns, resumes and other personal documents floating in the networks, but it comes across more serious data breaches such as a spreadsheet with the names of 30,000 AIDS patients, a psychological evaluation of a 5-year-old child, and a document with 20,000 Social Security numbers.

It's information that is not difficult to find, Little said.
"It's like a massive back door," he said.

Sundance: Universal Pictures Funding WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Docu By Alex Gibney And Ex-Uni Chairman Marc Shmuger

Deadline reports that Universal has picked up the rights to a documentary about the notorious Wikileaks founder that will be directed by Alex Gibney. The news come hot on the heels of reports that surfaced yesterday that a feature film treatment was in the works based on the upcoming biography The Most Dangerous Man in the World by journalist Andrew Fowler.
While it’s still unclear if Assange will participate in the documentary, the truth is the dude needs money for mounting legal fees stemming from a sexual assault case in Sweden and we don’t see him turning down an opportunity to do something that will not only help offset those costs, but allow him to speak at length and more clearly, rather than in selected soundbites.
Anyway, he was certainly was (and still is) one of the more fascinating and polarizing figures of the past year (despite what Time magazine thinks) and a documentary helmed by one of the genre’s finest directors should prove to be immensely involving. But we have to ask—when was the last time a major studio touched a documentary? Clearly Universal believes that truth is stranger fiction and that the story will be something that everyone wants to see.

By Jesselyn Radack
Justice Department Leakers of Classified Info. Get a Pass
Three months ago, journalist Michael Isikoff noted the disturbing "Double Standard" in White House Leak Inquiries. But now it's not just the Executive Branch. Josh Gerstein of Politico just published an article on how a judge ruled that the Justice Department can keep secret names of its own lawyers who leak classified information.

History offers no guarantees. If America plunges into an era of depression or violence which by then has not lifted, we will likely look back on the 1990s as the decade when we valued all the wrong things and made all the wrong choices.

By Thom Hartmann[[Hartmann]]
Could the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision soon be overturned?
Common Cause is taking the (corporate) bull by the horns. They are asking the Department of Justice to look into "conflict of interest" allegations in the Citizens United case that if found to be true could cause a reversal of the decision which gave corporations undue influence in our election process.

By Jesselyn Radack
DOJ: So-Called "Leakers" Are More Dangerous Than Spies
The strength of government's unyielding animus toward whistleblowers is no more evident than in the latest statements from disgraced prosecutor William Welch, who is "redeeming" himself amidst prosecutorial misconduct allegations stemming from the botched case against late-senator Ted Stevens by prosecuting whistleblowers like Thomas Drake under the Espionage Act.

By William Norman Grigg
Who gave you permission to notice?
At least since the 1950s, there have been US government-sponsored programs experimenting with mind control. A docile, submissive public is one end of these programs, and creating programmed assassins seems to be another. "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski had been a victim of an experimental mind control program when he was a Harvard undergraduate in 1959.

By Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Is the US Becoming a Failed State?
Noam Chomsky was one of the first to raise the question of US failed statehood in 2006 Failed States: the Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. This was two years before the federal government badly bungled the 2008 US banking collapse

Center for Constitutional Rights Appeals to Fox News President for Help in Silencing Glenn Beck Misinformation Campaign
The Center for Constitutional rights details a backlash through some of the many violent quotes on Beck's website. Examples include, "Maybe they should burst through the front door of this arrogant elitist and slit the hateful cow's throat," "We should blow up Piven's office and home," and "I am all for violence and change Frances: Where do your loved ones live?

No comments: