Comment

Comment by Freedomrox on January 20, 2011 at 11:06pm

Another interesting note is:

 

In his Feb. 14 ruling, Leon dismissed Windsor’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He determined that Evans addressed all 62 motions filed by Windsor in the Georgia proceeding with “great care” and ruled that Windsor’s claims against her have no standing because she is covered by judicial immunity that renders her “immune from suit on all official judicial acts.” Leon also determined that Windsor failed to follow appropriate procedures in filing his complaints against Maid officials.

“Rather than filing a short and plain statement of his claims against these defendants, plaintiff has submitted a 505-page complaint which utterly fails to give defendants fair notice of what his claims are and the grounds upon which they rest,” Leon wrote in his ruling.

Evans sided with Maid on nearly all counts in the original dispute over the vouchers and issued a permanent injunction against Windsor and his son’s company, Alcatraz Media. As part of a decision issued in December, Evans barred Windsor from filing any additional claims, characterizing the plaintiffs’ behavior as “clearly stubbornly litigious.” An Appeals Court dismissed all counterclaims filed by Windsor as “meritless.”

 

Leon noted the Georgia court’s findings that Windsor engaged in “extreme litigiousness” and in his own decision characterized Windsor as a “serial filer.” In his ruling, Leon suggests that Windsor’s attempt to sue Maid officials in his court might be in violation of the court order issued by Evans on Dec. 22. As a result, Leon referred the case to the Northern District of Georgia to allow Evans to consider whether Windsor is in contempt of her order.

 

Read the rest of this story here:

http://www.niagarablog.com/maid-of-the-mist-legal-claim-denied/

 

There is no Constitutional Question here. This was a case involving his son's company selling vouchers for Maid of the Mists. No Con Con question here at all.

Comment by Freedomrox on January 20, 2011 at 10:34pm

Sorry, but jen is right. See, folks, there are rules to be followed in a court of law. You cannot just jump up and say, "That's not true, and I have an affidavit to prove it!" First, you must have an Evidentiary Hearing on a pre-determined hearing day with proper notice to the other side, before it is admitted as evidence. Otherwise anyone could jump up in a trial and say anything. That isn't how it works. Without these hearings where arguments from both sides are heard and ruled upon, then it is just unheard 'heresay'. Not admissable. Once adjudicated, no Appeal will make it right. You had your opportunity and you blew it. The only way to cure such a foolish loss is to file a "Show Cause" in the court of original jurisdiction and bring up any new issues that are relevant. Otherwise, it can't be cured and the Supreme Court did nothing wrong.

Not one of these 'Denied' says one word about Voiding the Con Con. It says 'Denied Cert.' This is a case of someone framing the question, then screaming because they denied it, then the ANSWER must be a negative in response to pre-formed questions and suppositions.

 

This is a sorry excuse for a shout out over a non-issue. Want an issue? Read....

 

"No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."   

Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64) No offense to you, Bob, at all. Many get suckered into thinking one thing is said, when in fact with lack of a proper question, can render no answer. Good catch, though.

Comment by Swtnlovabl on January 20, 2011 at 6:58pm

Way to go Jen !! we will be waiting