It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Windsor's motion with respect to Judge Evans, because Windsor failed to show that he would suffer irreparable injury unless the district court issued an injunction against Judge Evans. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Windsor stated that he would be harmed if Judge Evans ruled on a complaint over which she had no jurisdiction. This harm is not irreparable, because Windsor may contest jurisdiction before Judge Evans and, if Judge Evans rules against him, Windsor may then [*9] appeal the ruling. See Northeastern Fla. Chapter, 896 F.2d at 1285. Accordingly, because Windsor has not demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable injury, he has failed to show that he was entitled to injunctive relief. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176.
Windsor also fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for injunctions against Maid, Maid's employees, and Maid's attorneys. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Windsor stated that he would be harmed by: (1) Maid's attorneys' destruction of documents; (2) the defendants' commission of perjury; and (3) the defendants' statements to the media. However, although Windsor alleged that Maid's attorneys had destroyed documents during the litigation of Maid I, the court noted that Maid I was litigated two-and-a-half years ago. Windsor acknowledged that the only evidence he had to support his claim was "what [the attorneys] did in [Maid I]." Thus, Windsor failed to show that harm was "actual and imminent." See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. Similarly, Windsor failed to show that he would suffer "actual and imminent" harm caused by the defendants' commission of perjury, [*10] because he admitted that he did not believe the defendants would commit perjury "in the short term."
With respect to Windsor's claim regarding the defendants' comments to the media, although Windsor may suffer harm as a result of these comments, he is unable to show that he is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of a defamation claim. In Georgia, truth is an absolute defense in a defamation action. See Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004), citing O.C.G.A. 51-5-6. Windsor admitted during the preliminary injunction hearing that the defendants' comments to the media were true. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Windsor's motion for injunctive relief as to the remaining defendants. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176.
1) Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2) Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3) Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?"
Originally posted by xizd1
We are at the mercy of the courts.
www.breitbart.com...
or
current.com...
These are the questions that will be answered:
"The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
1) Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
--The Judicial is forbidden to declare anything that either threatens, hinders or interferes with the Constitution itself. No entity has the authourity to declare any portion of the doc as invalid as well as ordering that it cannot ever be voided.
2) Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
--There is already Ethics panels and State justices who are deputized to try and hear cases pertaining to corruption amongst their own ranks.
3) Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?"
--No, this nation is ruled by the letter of the law and not the law of man so any Federal Court is hereby under direct orders to guarantee that the dispensement of justice is carried out via the letter of the law.
How can all witnesses giving false testimony not be relevant? Unbelievable!!
Perhaps one of our resident attorneys can make sense of this.
edit on 24-11-2010 by xizd1 because: Add infoedit on 24-11-2010 by xizd1 because: (no reason given)