Candidate for Congress introduces state legislation designed to reform the legal and judicial process — Changes desperately needed — Part 2 – Declaratory Judgments


William M. Windsor, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, has introduced state legislation designed to reform the legal and judicial process.  These are changes that Windsor says are desperately needed.

The legal systems and judicial systems in Georgia and every state in America must be reformed.  Dishonesty and corruption have stolen the rights of every American.

This is Part 2 of a series of articles that will address the proposed legislation for Georgia.  This proposed legislation makes simple changes to the statutes on Declaratory Judgments.

Judges use a variety of techniques to break the law.  These simple changes should ensure that certain state issues are not usurped by federal courts.  These changes will help to ensure that dishonest attorneys and dishonest federal judges do not illegally deprive Georgia citizens of their rights under Georgia law.

The changes to the existing Georgia Code statute is the addition of one new section, 9-4-11:


§ 9-4-11. Declaratory judgment actions may not be removed to federal court. 

Declaratory judgment actions that seek solely to have a court settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations pursuant to Georgia law are to be handled solely by Georgia courts.  Defendants may not remove such actions to federal courts.  Georgia courts will not allow removal of such cases.  The state courts shall have jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of removal, and if the notice is improper, the state courts shall refuse to allow the case to be removed.

Notes:  Declaratory judgment actions about the meaning of Georgia law do not meet the criteria for removal to federal court.  However, unscrupulous attorneys remove such actions to federal court where they know or feel they will find a dishonest judge who will refuse to remand the case to state court.  The plaintiff who has his case removed is powerless to do anything about it as the state court is rendered without jurisdiction.  This addition to the statutes should stop these illegal practices.

Note: Additions to the statutes are shown in yellow.

Proposed Legislation – Part 1

Proposed Legislation – Part 2

Proposed Legislation – Part 3

Proposed Legislation – Part 4

Proposed Legislation – Part 5

Proposed Legislation – Part 6

Proposed Legislation – Part 7

Proposed Legislation – Part 8

Proposed Legislation – Part 9

Proposed Legislation – Part 10

Proposed Legislation – Part 11

Proposed Legislation – Part 12

Proposed Legislation – Part 13

Proposed Legislation – Part 14

Proposed Legislation – Part 15

Proposed Legislation – Part 16

Proposed Legislation – Part 17

This legislation is authored by William M. Windsor and GRIP — Government Reform & Integrity Platform, a coalition of those fighting government corruption and judicial corruption.

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply