This made me laugh at first until I realized they were serious.
http://www.breitbart.com/ar...31921&show_article=1

quote 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 amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed."

For more information, see http://www.LawlessAmerica.com
------------------

"THE GREAT GOD AND MASTER OF THE CUT AND PASTE WORLD"

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-21-2011).]

I Just wanna break stuff

You'll uunderstand if this post comes up all screwy

BTW try using this link instead
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usn...18/pl_usnw/CL31921_1

SUCCESS!!!

Fixed it. For some reason the forum doesn't like a quote within a quote.

ok, what the hell did you do to the forum?!?!?



edit: nvm, it's fixed

[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 01-20-2011).]

So, the "landmark" Supreme Court decision was not to hear the case? The Supreme court does NOT hear all cases filed. Instead it picks and chooses what is worth of hearing. The fact that one case is denied Supreme Court consideration does not make it a landmark decision; it only makes it one of hundreds of cases not considered. . The only decision that I could discern was the decision not to hear the case. Did I miss something here? From the best I can tell, this is the district I live in and the guy is correct; it has received absolutely no local media coverage. Could it be because his case was fairly dispatched the first time and upon appeal? I'm not saying it was, but the ravings of a disgruntled party does not necessarily make for a landmark Supreme Court decision.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: So, the "landmark" Supreme Court decision was not to hear the case? The Supreme court does NOT hear all cases filed. Instead it picks and chooses what is worth of hearing. The fact that one case is denied Supreme Court consideration does not make it a landmark decision; it only makes it one of hundreds of cases not considered. . The only decision that I could discern was the decision not to hear the case. Did I miss something here? From the best I can tell, this is the district I live in and the guy is correct; it has received absolutely no local media coverage. Could it be because his case was fairly dispatched the first time and upon appeal? I'm not saying it was, but the ravings of a disgruntled party does not necessarily make for a landmark Supreme Court decision.

Ah crap - now you say it. I had already set fire to my framed copy of the constitution. All I have left is "We the pe" left. I was really looking forward to the lawlessness. And if we do end up re-writing it I say drop those 10 "fixes" they tacked on right after they wrote it.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Ah crap - now you say it. I had already set fire to my framed copy of the constitution. All I have left is "We the pe" left. I was really looking forward to the lawlessness. And if we do end up re-writing it I say drop those 10 "fixes" they tacked on right after they wrote it.

Sorry to spoil the party! Maybe I misread and you can carry on???

[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 01-20-2011).]

According to some sources, courts are not operated under constitutional authority. This is truely a "fringe" issue:

quote The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign jurisdiction, the same as if you are stepping onto foreign soil and you will be under the jurisdiction of THAT flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of any court, and is not recognized by any nation on this earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America.

http://www.unexplainable.ne...h/article_8921.shtml

And the bloggers at Ron Pauls site debate WHAT IS THAT GOLD FRINGE ON THE FLAG?

This may be another urban legend but many think there is something sinister about the court flag fringe.

Just what this thread needs, a right turn into the more absurd.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 01-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by spark1: According to some sources, courts are not operated under constitutional authority. This is truely a "fringe" issue

You mean, like "lunatic fringe"? It's not like there is a whole section of the Constitution dedicated to the Judicial Branch, or anything.

quote From the US Constitution: Article III - The Judicial Branch Section 1 - Judicial powers The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.) In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section 3 - Treason Note Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Hmm... looks like Constitutional authority to me! And here's a link to the full text of the US Constitution, for those (ahem) who need it: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Hmm... looks like Constitutional authority to me! And here's a link to the full text of the US Constitution, for those (ahem) who need it: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

No one is suggesting there isn't Constitutional authority for the courts.
The question is one of jurisdiction. Supposedly the fringe denotes U.S. Maritime Law Jurisdiction, which is different than the juristiction denoted in the Constitution.
Two different courts.

I'm not supporting one story or the other. I haven't researched it enough yet to form an opinion, but that is apparently what the argument is about.
I do find it interesting. The fringe does mean something. Nothing is put on an official flag without some kind of meaning. It's not meant simply to mean it's a "fancy" flag. I'll research more later.

Edit: Just found this:
http://www.usflag.org/colors.html

quote The quote below concerning gold fringe on the Flag is from the book "So Proudly We Hail, The History of the United States Flag" Smithsonian Institute Press 1981, by Wiliam R. Furlong and Byron McCandless. "The placing of a fringe on Our Flag is optional with the person of organization, and no Act of Congress or Executive Order either prohibits the practice, according to the Institute of Hearaldry. Fringe is used on indoor flags only, as fringe on flags on outdoor flags would deteriorate rapidly. The fringe on a Flag is considered and 'honorable enrichment only', and its official use by the US Army dates from 1895.. A 1925 Attorney General's Opinion states: 'the fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the Flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.'" The gold trim is generally used on ceremonial indoor flags that are used for special services and is believed to have been first used in a military setting. It has no specific significance that I have ever run across, and its (gold trim) use is in compliance with applicable flag codes and laws.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-21-2011).]

To most of us it's just decoration but the urban legend just won't die. I can't find anything about it on Snopes except in the blogs. Maybe it's there and I'm not using the right search words.

There are some other sites that do debunk the fringe issue like http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#flagfringes that says "There is actually some interesting history behind this nonsense." ..... "Because the Attorney General expressed the opinion that the President as Commander-in-Chief can put a fringe on military flags, tax protesters have leapt to the conclusion that all flags with fringes are military flags. This idea has been flatly rejected in numerous court decisions." (The decisions are listed).

The flag issue is just one part of the parallel universe explained at this site: http://www.usavsus.info/

(Just be sure to wear your tin foil hat when viewing that site).

quote Originally posted by carnut122: So, the "landmark" Supreme Court decision was not to hear the case? The Supreme court does NOT hear all cases filed.

This is why personally i have always said that the supreme court is the most powerful branch. They can pick and choose at will.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: This is why personally i have always said that the supreme court is the most powerful branch. They can pick and choose at will.

The President can pick to sign, not to sign or to "pocket" bills. He can also choose how to endorse/fund legislation. The two houses can decide whether or not to write legislation or just dead-end items in committee. All can make decisions, but until a retirement or death of a justice, yes, the Supreme Court has the big stick.