No automatic right to lawyer in US civil cases: court

The US Supreme Court in Washington
© AFP/File Karen Bleier

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states did not have an automatic duty to provide counsel in civil courts in the case of a divorced father who was jailed for failing to pay child support.

By a majority 5-4 vote, the justices found that while the South Carolina father's rights had been violated because he was not given free counsel, US states did not have to provide such advice in all civil contempt cases.

The case was being highly watched and had become emblematic of what civil rights groups have called a trend towards "debtors' prisons" in America.

Supreme Court orders California to free prisoners

A locked cellblock inside a US prison
© AFP/File Robyn Beck

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ordered California Monday to free thousands of prison inmates, saying chronic overcrowding violated inmates' rights -- but one judge warned the ruling was "outrageous."

In a narrow 5-4 majority ruling upholding a lower court decision, the top US court said the release is the only way to address the constitutional violation of cruel and unusual punishment.

"This case arises from serious constitutional violations in California's prison system. The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a majority opinion.

Supreme Court Lets Corporations Ban Class Actions

"This morning, the US Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts." - Attorney Deepak Gupta.

Supreme Court AFP File image

Stephen Lendman, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

In an earlier article I discussed hurdles ordinary people face before America's High Court.  Saying pro-business rulings aren't new, it suggested the most damaging one occurred in 1886.  In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway, the High Court granted corporations legal personhood. Ever since, they've had the same rights as people without the responsibilities. Their limited liability status exempts them.

As a result, they've profited hugely and continue winning favorable rulings. Today more than ever from the Roberts Court, one observer calling its first full (2006-07) term a "blockbuster" with the Court's conservative wing prevailing most often.

Through today, it's been much the same, notably in its January 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, ruling government can't limit corporate political election spending as doing it violates their First Amendment freedoms. Writing for the 5 - 4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy called it legal "political speech," effectively putting a price tag on democracy.

Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution

PRNewswire

The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather.  The decision should be rendered by the end of the year.  Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.

The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?

Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants? 

Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).

Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006.  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 (cert 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.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."

Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court.  By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.

Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States.  However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top.  My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress.  I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"

Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts.  Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and 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."

The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year.  It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.

For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page