Monday, May 27, 2013

Happy Memorial Day


So as most of the Nation pauses to remember the men and woman who fought to keep us free, Bill Windsor, who said those that died in battle died in vain, continues to unravel at the seams.

First, we had a very well done Ripoff Report on the scam that is Lawless America:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Lawless-America/internet/Lawless-America-William-M-Windsor-Bill-Windsor-Lawless-America-Association-Lawless-A-1054005

Bill gives his usually tired old tactic of trying to discredit the source because of actions he has taken against them.  Example...."I filed criminal charges against so and so, therefore nothing they do or say is credible".

Then Bill decides to really scare everyone by releasing this:


LEGAL NOTICE FROM BILL WINDSOR:

The laws of some states provide that I should clearly and definitively demand that stalkers, haters, harassers, libelers, slanderers, and anyone posting anything negative about me or threatening to my family... or me cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct. So, cease and desist and abate.

Let there be no question whatsoever that I will personally pursue criminal charges against each and every one of you, and I will sue you for general damages, special damages, and punitive damages.


That's right...did you hear that everyone, from now on we are all on notice that he will not hesitate to file charges against us and vexatiously sue us and anyone around us.

Of course the joke continues to be on him as his bluff has been called.  He can't stop anyone, he cant do anything about free speech.  He is biting his own tail and too stupid to realize where that sharp pain is coming from.  Yes Bill, keep operating out of that same ole playbook, its doing wonders for your sanity.

197 comments:

  1. He is such a dumba$$!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great photo. Where do you find these?

    ReplyDelete
  3. See, now this is the reason I take exception to the tiny man with tiny parts and a big mouth. Bill knows full well the "lunatic" that made the comment he took as a threat is no where near Texas. And he knows that nobody in Texas has made any kind of comment that can be construed as a threat against him.

    I am in El Paso Texas on May 27 -- last chance for lunatics to make good on their plan to have me assaulted or killed before I leave Texas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's just going to prove that Bill is a nutjob, and posts whatever he thinks will be a dramatic flair for his ego boost for the day.

      You know, every time I see him post that someone made a threat, or death threat I just go back to the big article he wrote up and the President put a hit out on him or something like that. (only the old articles seem to be showing up on his .com site. TAKE NOTE, he even posted the Kill Bill picture. It's him that does this stuff. But then when someone else picks up on it, to make fun of him, he blames them for it.)

      William M. Windsor again concerned with Threats from the U.S. Government Tuesday, 15 November 2011

      http://lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=539:william-m-windsor-again-concerned-with-threats-from-the-us-government&catid=120:news-reports&Itemid=222

      Delete
    2. F you dumbass. Call me a lunatic and I get to call you a lying pie loving POS. You really are a stupid dumbass.... I mean really... Everything on the internet is true, and its all my fault. Imho, its you making fake profiles in my name just so you can create drama. Now shut your fat mouth and leave me the F out of it. Oh, and f you nothing!!!!

      Delete
    3. Fact is, if the bounty comment had not been made Bill would not have anything to blow out of proportion.

      Delete
    4. So why did YOU make it?? No one outside your realm of lies even knows what you are talking about. Move on to your next harassment victim.

      Delete
    5. Nice try, but everyone knows who the liar is.

      Delete
  4. LOL...someone posted a complaint on Ripoff Report against Lawless American and attached my GALLOP image. You're Welcome!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Wow, you're going big time now buddy! Viral is next! woo hoo! lovin it!

      Delete
  5. LOL

    Revwolfgang P Descalso

    Someone is denying us access to your web sites for instructions and such. You are under attack my friend.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Is that because it doesn't go anywhere. It could be blocked by the FBI or the CIA or something like the NWO. But, i like the KISS method of things. If you read below Ralphs comment, it is not set up at Enom servers as of this time. Let's stop making everything a conspiracy and be more realistic. You've been watching too much INFO WARS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AND....^^^it's gone now.

      Delete
    2. Revwolfgang,
      Here are your instructions:

      DON'T TALK ABOUT INSTRUCTIONS!

      Delete
  6. Well Bill, your real name isn't Lawless America either. Hummm how's that gonna work?

    Lawless America sickos. pathetic serial liar sickos. this is criminal behavior. i am in texas where it is a crime to post under fake names. see you in jail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, not only that, but it's a known, provable fact he has other people post using the moniker, "Lawless America".

      Delete
    2. Sorry, did it again Ninja. I was gathering up some fake names before I hit enter.

      Delete
    3. Perfect! Team work!

      Delete
    4. Considering that his ancestral name is not Windsor, you would think he could have some sympathy for those who changed their names for privacy reasons. Legend has it, his name was motivated only for profit.

      Delete
    5. ** his name was only changed due to a motivation for profit.

      Delete
    6. Um yeah so it isn't illegal to post under a fake name in Texas. It's only illegal if you tell the cop a fake name....

      Delete
  7. Lawless America sickos. pathetic serial liar sickos. this is criminal behavior. i am in texas where it is a crime to post under fake names. see you in jail.

    Uh huh, and are Yoel, Sweet Pea, Jeep, Robin AintMizbahavin, Skippy Peanutbutter, Chelsea Playcharacter and Fred Autonom going to jail too? Or just the people that say stuff Bill doesn't like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OOOHHH that's great NBTDT! Ya, what's he gonna do about all of them? Hahahahaha

      Delete
    2. I would like to see that law. LOL. Funny thing is, you can have whatever your name wherever that is what a screenname is. LOL. This guy cracks me up.

      " I deleted the posts of two serial stalkers and criminals. Likely Michelle Stilipec and All Lies Overstreet." -B.W.

      I am sure that one was not any of them he just made an ASS out of himself with his assumptions. He is as paranoid as other people on his page.

      The reason I asked on the other post how is it bill was called a pedophile is because listening to fridays show it appeared to be all about AMPP. Point is that I have watched personally women online, I am not sure if they are AMPP or PMA I can't keep track but if you don't believe their story your a pedophile and abuser supporter. You might even be a woman hater. Just because someone doubts or doesn't not fully believe your DV story 100% they are none of the above.

      Delete
    3. LOL He knows NOTHING and was just proved to be a MORON.

      XXXXXXX " i am in texas where it is a crime to post under fake names. see you in jail." I'm curious as to which Texas statute you are referring to here. Please post a link to the statute.
      about an hour ago · Like..

      Lawless America Texas Penal Code SEC. 33.07 has been violated hundreds of times by serial criminals.
      15 minutes ago · Like..

      XXXXXXXXX Wait... That statute has nothing to do with a "fake" name... Texas Penal Code SEC. 33.07 A person commits an offense if the person, without obtaining the other person's consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person, uses the name or persona of another person. That would only apply Bill if someone used your name... and why would anyone want to do that. Nice try thanks for playing.

      Delete
    4. Sean? I dunno what show you listened to that was ALL about any ONE thing, other than Windsor /LawlessAmerica.
      We had a coupla callers Friday, that maybe were affiliated with AMPP, that have been DIRECTLY affected/been a VICTIM of THE BillWindsor/LawlessAmerica! like mono E mono affected. That kinda DIRECTLY.
      They are posting here, so they're affiliated with us, too.
      They post on alot of public FaceBook pages, Pinterest, Twitter, InstaGram, Tumblr, YouTube, Reddit...So do I. So do you.
      Sooooooo, technically? We're all "affiliated" with them.
      We get it.
      We ALL get what you're SNIDELY & REPEATEDLY inferring.
      Not just the females among us. A L L of us. You have beat us over the comments with it repeatedly!
      Regardless, IF your comment was/is NOT on topic, you get it to the DV abuse Moms, & usually in 20 words or less. Every freaking fracking time.
      DAMN.
      We GOT it.
      You have made it abundantly CLEAR =You don't seem to believe there are very many domestic violence victims. & you don't seem to like that they have support groups/pages or blogs. WE GET IT.
      *idea* YOU could make a BLOG about JUST that!!
      And Sean? We spent 56 minutes during one of our very 1st blogtalkradio segments JUST listening to YOU! Yes! Y O U!!!
      You told us all about Michigan, some Kloostra & Melinen woman (that we could give 2 rat's shits' less about, @that time), Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, TeaBaggers (as you referred to them), Obama, your views on adoption & CPS, foster care, etc, etc....
      And Sean? That time during that show in which you called in? the chat log commenters were BEGGING for you to PTFD or STFU!
      OR they were BEGGING us to just hang up on you!! There were rumors of ear bleeds! & pleas for ear bleach!
      You were OFFENSIVE & OFFENSIVELY B O R I N G. I personally wondered IF you took a breath.
      NOW> the woman you are referring to that called Bill a pedophile & a pedophile supporter was Connie Bedwell. She is not PMA or AMPP. We've covered this ground eight seven hundred umpteem times, dude. Many many many people didn't believe her story. Bill did! He ate it up like pie.
      Bill makes derogatory statements about women ALL the time. Allie even told us he fretted over how his posts were obviously biased & what could he update his FaceBook with that would "support" to improve his image in this area. Bill was being labeled a woman hater & losing women's $upport because of his posts, very SIMILAR to YOURS!
      Ok? You're coming in loud & clear. You DO have a very rich, pleasant speaking voice...it's your choice of WORDS that is unlikeable. UN. Very UN.
      I'm fairly certain I speak for most here:
      Either follow along on topic with your snarky comments (that, by the way, need a freaking 2nd grader teacher's decoding manual), OR be just a teenie bit humorous OR insightful OR? (I hope, pray, beg the Dear Baby Jesus) just keep that shit on your YouTube videos about fast food.
      And? guess what? I'm not an AMPP-er or a PMA-ist or an ATW-een...nope.
      *If I have am wrong or am offensive? I apologize. Personally, I'm past fed the eff up with Sean's off topic/thread shit fest. I thought we were supposed to be sticking together for one purpose.
      I'm done now.
      **Happy Memorial Day** thank you for another on point blog Ginger**waving**

      Delete
    5. And that ladies and gentlemen, is Petunia Unplugged.......


      ****bowing******

      Happy Memorial Day!

      Delete
    6. I like Petunia.









      Can`t say the same for Shaun.

      Delete
    7. Well Done, Petunia! ♥♥♥♥♥

      Delete
    8. I said something last night that I wanna expound on here, today.
      Because?
      I freaking can!
      I am an American! I can write, say or think anything I want.
      Just like Sean can....
      Ain't that awesome?
      No where in my little hissy fit did I demand that Sean "Cease & Desist" or "Abate" (wtfever Abate is)...I didn't threaten to sue him or file criminal charges.
      And? I seriously doubt that Sean will either.
      We'll bitch & gritch at one another & get butthurt, giggle snort a little, maybe we'll think about what the other commented....
      AND? most likely, we'll both be more cautious about what & how we phrase things to others from now on.
      Why?
      Because that's what NORMAL Americans do!
      We E X E R C I S E our Right to Freedom of Speech!
      We don't abuse it or twist it.
      And?
      Finally?
      I DO NOT HATE ANYONE.
      I may hate or greatly dislike the things they say or do, but, I don't think I have hate in my heart for anyone.
      Not even Bill Windsor. I am awed by the man's unhappiness & need to feel superior & his need for any kind of attention.
      Mostly? I feel pity for him.
      I feel such huge emotions for those he's harmed, no words can express.
      I don't hate Windsor, though, I can see why some do & they are rightfully entitled to those emotions.
      I just want him stopped by LEGAL MEANS.
      ONLY.
      I am about as country as anyone can be. I have scrapped & rolled around in the gravel more than once as the result of words that caused childish anger. I was alot younger then, & even then? I never ever once thought of ever inflicting force or trauma on someone other than during those tussles as a youngster.
      I would never stoop to a low level that would cause MrWindsor any type of bodily harm. He's old, unhealthy & obviously not in his right mind. Why would anyone wanna kick him when life is already whooping his ass?
      If MrWindsor says that he's ever rec'd a threat from me?
      He's beyond delusional.
      I can sit in the comfort of my air conditioned home & watch the consequences of his life's choices & that karma whoop his old, weak ass. THAT is worse than anything a human could ever inflict on him. That? Is a fact.
      Sean? Can we just shake or fist bump & chill? Maybe you can begin again with a different approach? Regroup?
      I am very proud to be an American & I greatly appreciate the blanket of Freedom I sleep under provided to me by the many heroes we have currently in our Military & those Veterans that have served our Great Nation. I am so very thankful we do not live in Lawless America & never will.
      Our nation may have flaws, but I'll take it over any other!
      Now?
      I'm done.

      Delete
    9. Petunia? Again, I bow to your greatness.....


      ****bowing*****

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. @Ninja, RE: Billy's misinterpretation of Texas Penal Code SEC. 33.07


      Once again Ninja comes though! Well done!

      Delete
    12. Oh I can not take credit. A very wise person posted that, and I only copied it, to save from the impending delete button!

      Delete
    13. OK then.....once again Ninja comes through to save valuable material from impending delete. Well done!

      Delete
    14. It is impending no more. Unfortunately it suffered the same fate all other comments that prove Bill to be a moron do...

      Delete
    15. Petunia you neglected to mention that Sean's freedom of speech here, is subject to the whims of the regulars. Let's not mistake this as a blog that encourages free speech.

      You didn't tell Sean to cease and desist yet, but you will if he continues to verbalize a political view that you disagree with. Every dissenting opinion here is viewed as snide.

      Repetition of ideas and facts is the norm here, because there isn't enough news to talk about daily. But repetition of a dissenting view, will never fly.

      No, you didn't tell Sean to cease and desist. You took the usual road of attacking him personally and assuring him that everyone else here dislikes him too. He cannot remain here if he is going to keep expressing his dissenting view. The pattern for dealing with dissenters is very well established here now. If you have to run the place like Hitler, as least have the integrity to own that policy.

      Don't pretend you encourage free speech when the censorship here is exactly the same as it is on LA.

      Delete
    16. I just had a Susan flashback.

      Delete
    17. Yep. Me too!
      Like the wiiiiiiiind!

      Delete
    18. Awww isn't that cute? Someone is still OH SO obsessed over us. You should feel extra-special Petunia <3. giggle snort

      Delete
    19. Naw, she's got it backwards. Petunia didn't admonish Sean for having a dissenting voice. Petunia scolded Sean for using his wonderful voice to cause dissension. Big difference.

      Just like Susan used to do.........

      Delete
    20. http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2012/11/three-overbroad-texas-penal-statutes.html
      some light reading as to why Texas wont enforce the law Billy listed

      Delete
    21. Susan has as much legal knowledge as rat in a sewer.

      Delete
    22. Susan is that you? Did you come to play on my turf. Have you missed me that much?

      Delete
    23. Petunia's soapbox is so poignant and tickley. I think I'm getting a crush on her, even if she sounds like waitress Flo or Vicky Lawrence.

      Delete
    24. The only thing wrong with Sean is that he's a Damn Yankee.

      Delete
  8. Rik Little is all up in Bill's FB....how come Bill's ain't hitting the delete button? Wait, why is Rik not blocked?


    Rik Little "stalkers" is a BULLSHIT manhating Feminist term.

    Rik Little "Rape" is the ching ching$$$ word for Feminists who desire to GET Federal grants for their "victimhood". Repeal VAWA!!
    9 hours ago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill hates VAWA too, probably because it talks about things such as stalking.

      Delete
    2. Hey, good question...why isn't Rik blocked? He was on the "LIST". SMH

      You know, at this point, I think Bill only publically listed Rik as a hater, but really didn't block him out completely, because when Rik showed up in DC, Rik said Bill told him he had gotten him in trouble, and then welcomed him aboard.

      Bill only did that to make it look like he was upset at Rik's "only good feminist is a dead one" comment. Ya, Bill's a lying prick.

      Delete
  9. Over on Billy's FB page, folks ask him to pray for them. Well, Billy won't pray for you, but he will be delighted to prey on you!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sue Meeh's FB comments from last night got deleted.

    Lawless America I deleted the posts of two serial stalkers and criminals. Likely Michelle Stilipec and All Lies Overstreet.


    And Naomi is back. I think I actually agree with her this time. I certainly do agree with the video she posted on her blog.

    http://venturephilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-michael-lindsay-brief.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I recall, Billie's own testimony is that it can't be proved that something was written by a certain person just because it came from their profile, and in this case it did not come from our profiles. And as Allie has stated a full police investigation would prove who the real guilty party is, but pretty sure he doesn't want that.

      Delete
    2. He just keeps screwing up more and more by posting name of people he assumes are posting. It's good, let him hang himself.

      Delete
    3. Lawless America sickos. pathetic serial liar sickos. this is criminal behavior. i am in texas where it is a crime to post under fake names. see you in jail.

      IMHO, Billy ignores one of the Maxims of Equity: those who seek equity must do equity. As adduced from the above quote, Billy can't help but libel and slander folks with whom he has a dispute.

      Delete
    4. Can't you just see him now, stomping around his hotel room, all red faced, cursing at the computer? Feverishly searching profiles, web pages, huffing and puffing as his blood pressure soars while he hits delete. Then sitting down and quickly typing out that moronic diatribe that doesn't mean shit?

      Delete
    5. Oh yeah. He might even get lonely. Lonely enough to call an enabler.

      Delete
  11. Hey, part of the LA.com site is back up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where because it isn't coming up for me.

      Delete
    2. I just typed Lawless American in google search & the site popped up. Most current post date is 3/22/12.

      Delete
  12. In another control freak move, Bitter Bill deleted the section for other people to leave him comments. We have all noticed that he doesn't reply to them, but it at least let them "think" their voices were being heard. Now they have no way to share their voice to him or anyone else and are silenced again. They can only comment on what he posts. How controlling.

    Ya, I want to hear how he's helping them again. How he listens, cares and gives them a voice....ya he doesn't. Nice immature slap in the face to the few that still follow you Bitter Man Bill Windsor.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lookie here, lookie here. I was trolling to see if I could find out what Schied is up to and stumbled onto to this little nugget. Some old familiar names tried that Citizens Grand Jury Presentment thing on President Obama back in '09. mmmmmm, now just who was it came up with the 'Meet Me In DC' idea?

    http://archive.org/details/CitizensGrandJury-ServesObamaTreasonAndFraudPresentmentInD.c

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess this is the plan when the Citizen Grand Juries are found to have no standing. Again.

      http://americasvoicenow.org/the-plan-to-take-back-america-place-all-state-and-federal-capitols-under-civil-disobedient-siege/

      Delete
  14. I wish someone would put this nutjob in a straight jacket and in a padded cell where he belongs. And let a few others join him... So, is it true when he tried to file all these things against jane and john does the courts threw them out? Last time I checked, he made himself a public figure so he put himself up for PUBLIC scrutiny. I mean, I guess celebs CAN sue tabloids, if they said something really hurtful and harmfully untrue about them or their families, but last time I checked, you can't sue someone for telling the truth about you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Attorney can tell us more, but from what it says here, John Does must be identified by a certain time point. So that is probably fueling Billie's insane ride.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_defendants

      Of course his accusations are ridiculous for many reasons, but also because he tries to link us all together under the RICO act which is not designed to be used against a group of commenters on a web, but actual criminal organizations.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rico_act

      Delete
    2. In other words, the lawsuit against Allie is the lightning rod he is using to attack us all, because he knows he will never have the chance to sue us all.

      Delete
    3. I'm feeling a little like Beetlejuice here, with folks invoking my name and then I appear.... but anyway.

      [F]rom what it says here, John Does must be identified by a certain time point.

      Certainly. The Wikipedia article you've linked to (like most Wikipedia articles on legal topics) is reasonably good.

      The point of suing a John Doe is that you believe you've been tortiously wronged by a person whose name you don't know yet—but whose name you hope to learn during discovery. Windsor's hope in the Missouri case (in which he stated that, what, a thousand Does were defendants?) is that the discovery process will give him an opportunity to force the named defendants, as well as webmasters and ISPs and whoever else, to give up the IP addresses and/or names of—it would appear—everyone who has ever said an unkind thing about him online. If that works, he can then amend his complaint to say that he has identified John Doe #1 as Henry Hudson, #2 as Amelia Earhart, #3 as Jimmy Hoffa, and so forth. (http://tinyurl.com/ovgz2bq if you don't get the (mediocre) joke.) So yes, it does appear to be an attempt to attack all of his detractors, Joeys and otherwise, in the Missouri lawsuit.

      And it wouldn't be a bad strategy at all, if there were a reasonable chance that the court is going to help him force ISPs and the like to cough up the names of anonymous or pseudonymous internet commenters just because Windsor doesn't like what they have had to say online. If I've correctly caught the drift of some previous comments on this blog, I gather that Ginger knows more about recent developments in this particular area of the law than I do—but my sense is that courts aren't going to be interested in allowing Windsor to use discovery powers (such as subpoenas) this way.

      If a plaintiff isn't able to identify John Doe defendants by a certain time in the litigation, any claims against those defendants become meaningless. I presume that different jurisdictions (states, etc.) have different policies on exactly what that time would be—but the most obvious deadline would be the close of the discovery period.

      Even to the extent that Windsor does succeed in uncovering one or two (or, hell, 500) John Does and adding them to his lawsuit, that is a far sight from proving that they're liable to him for defamation or whatever. Figuring out who (say) "Ginger Snap" is in order to add him to the litigation is only a very preliminary step toward proving that that person is liable to Windsor for anything at all.

      Delete
    4. LOL Attorney! with the Beetlejuice comparison.

      Thank you for clarifying this for us! We love your insight and knowledge on these questionable subjects.

      Delete
    5. Thanks Attorney, here is the case that was against me and OReader: http://courtecom.dallascounty.org/pav/
      case dc1302033

      This case was from a guy named John Margetis who was involved with Joey Dauben and our coverage with that...but he did join with Windsor and was listed on the names of the project (he also was a guest on one of his talkshoe programs).

      Anyway....way after the fact JM decided to file a lawsuit against me for defamation, but if was from a story on the old, now shut down wordpress site, so he also included OReader who had site up a site that copied and pasted some of the old articles. So he had to name John Does 1-3 (one was me and the other two were OReader) and then he made the fatal mistake of adding Google to it (the owner of BlogSpot). Well Google blew his claims out of the water to a degree I would not have thought and as he looked to be on the hook for legal fees he agreed to dismiss the case (and google with prejudice). But there are some really good principle arguments that Google used, yes this is Texas, that are really going to apply to Bill as well (a limited public figure). So the information in this I think is beneficial to all.

      It is my belief that this too was a fishing expidtion by Bill through Margetis in order to compel my personal information.

      Delete
    6. Giggle giggle snort! @Attorney made a joke!! I luff it!

      Again, thank you @Attorney for your 'translations' & insights!

      Delete
    7. Well even if the court did allow the subpoenas in discovery, correct me if I'm wrong but, each individual of the 1000+ John Does would get a separate subpoena. Meaning he would have to pay for 1000+ subpoenas just to TRY to compel (say) Google to give up commenter's information. I am not an attorney but I know subpoenas aren't cheap.

      That and we all know how Google feels about that...

      Delete
    8. Google has $50+ billion cash on hand, so they may be able to afford a lawyer or two.

      Delete
    9. So I have a potential career fallback as a comedian, eh? Thanks, folks.

      correct me if I'm wrong but, each individual of the 1000+ John Does would get a separate subpoena.

      I think probably not, no. You can't subpoena someone when you don't know who she is, where he lives, or anything else useful about him or her.

      Windsor would need to issue, more or less, one subpoena per source of information about the identities of John Does. He could also demand that the named defendants answer questions about their knowledge of Does' identities, a tactic that wouldn't require any subpoenas at all.

      Anyway, if one ISP could give him the IP addresses (or whatever other identifying information) of 600 Does, he could theoretically acquire that ISP's data on all 600 of them with one subpoena.

      It's important to note that all of these tactics—all discovery tactics in any civil litigation whatsoever—are only as effective as the presiding judge is interested in enforcing the requesting party's demands. If the judge thinks that your subpoena demanding that an ISP fork over the names of 600 users is stupid, overreaching nonsense, then that ISP can pretty much ignore that subpoena (or tell you to go to hell) and there's very little you can do about it. Not incidentally, it's getting stuck in situations like that one, after issuing ridiculous discovery demands, that leads certain people to holler that the entire judicial system is a criminal conspiracy.

      The moral of the story is that if you hope to get anything worthwhile in discovery, you really can't afford to piss off the judge (or convince her that you're a loon who's just using litigation to harass people), because she's the only one around to enforce your right to get information.

      Also, of course, the number 1000 is pretty obviously something Windsor just made up—a number that's big enough that he figures he won't run out even if he manages to uncover the identities of a huge proportion of his online opponents.

      Hell, to hear Windsor 'talk,' pretty much everyone who ever posts something unkind about him is actually Ms. Overstreet in disguise, right? One wonders why he needed to name any Does at all.

      Delete
    10. Dumb thing is, anything unkind I said, he's already published online for everyone to see. And even those were not threats. Oh, he tells judges my saying "we will blow you wide open" means blow him up with a bomb or a gun, but in the second half of that sentence I said "for your lies and using people's vulnerability for Lawless America." Meaning, expose HIS corruption and prove he's full of shit. There is nothing else, just the stuff I say here and his naming me every time he can't figure out who said some meanie thing to him. I invite him to somehow track me or my electronics to any of the crap he blames me for. In fact, I beg. I can't wait til he asks me for a polygraph. .....over some FB drama.

      Delete
  15. LNM, he is suing for damages. This can only take place int he county your in. So even if he adds you to the list the procedure is not correct and you have nothing to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, I think you skipped civil procedure class, Sean. I don't think you understand this legal issue very well.

      Unless there's something in Missouri law that is different from any other state's law that I know about, a Missouri court in one county absolutely could issue a judgment binding someone who lived in some other Missouri county. So if LNM lives in (say) St. Louis, she's not home free just because the lawsuit in question was filed in rural Lafayette County.

      (I repeat: maybe there's something in Missouri law that says otherwise—in which case I'm simply wrong above—but I'd be really shocked if that were the case.)

      The bigger issue, of course, is what happens if LNM lives in some state other than Missouri. That would indeed present LNM (and anyone else sued in this way) with a defense that could potentially be very strong—regarding the issue called personal jurisdiction.

      Personal jurisdiction amounts to the question of whether LNM (or whoever) has had "sufficient contacts" with the state of Missouri that that state's courts ought to have the power to issue decisions binding her. The issue has elements stemming from both state law (the "long-arm statute" in the forum state) and constitutional law (because, under the U.S. Constitution, states aren't allowed to assert jurisdiction over just anybody).

      Personal jurisdiction is a complex issue; the beginner-level introduction provided in civil procedure class in law school takes weeks. It's hard to say whether an internet commenter from (say) Idaho who says unkind things about a person from (say) North Carolina would thereby be establishing "sufficient contacts" with the state of Missouri. If anyone outside of Missouri finds him or herself dragged into the Windsor-Overstreet lawsuit, though, it would behoove him or her to consult legal counsel regarding the potential objection that the Missouri court has no personal jurisdiction over claims against that defendant.

      Delete
    2. But LNM endorsed Sean's theory so it must be correct!

      Delete
    3. Hey Sean, I was just wondering how you learned about Lawless America? I'm just curious because we've been asking each other the same thing and you weren't there for that conversation.

      Delete
    4. No, I didn't know what to say to Sean and oversimplified, and I apologize. The reason Billie would have to abuse the RICO act is out of fear that MO wouldn't subpoena average citizens simply for exercising their freedom of speech against a known vexatious litigant. There are a few things about Sean's statement that I do not agree with, but in the interest of keeping the peace, I did not bring them up.

      Delete
    5. sniff? sniff?
      Is it?
      Could it be?
      Say it isn't!
      Up ^^^ prior to LNM's reposes to @Attorney?

      Run! Like the wiiiiiiind~~~ if it's her? You're gonna lose valuable minutes of your life you can NEVER get back! & you coulda been Snoozin' instead....zzzzzzzzz

      Delete
    6. Missouri has no interest in and therefore no power to compel an out of state ISP to provide the identity of an out of state poster unless the offending post somehow targeted or involved Missouri.

      Windsor should have filed in Georgia, which has an interest in helping to identify anyone that may have committed a tort against one of its residents.

      Delete
    7. Oh Petunia, there is the intelligent response I knew I could expect from you!

      Delete
    8. Anon 9:52, well there's the problem. He claims he is no longer and will never be again a resident of Georgia. If you can believe that.

      Delete
    9. Windsor can sue in Georgia for any tort that occurred while he was there. Further, anyone that owns property in a state is entitled to the protections of that state. He may not live in Georgia, but that is where he should have filed the suit.

      Delete
    10. Missouri has no interest in and therefore no power to compel an out of state ISP to provide the identity of an out of state poster unless the offending post somehow targeted or involved Missouri.

      Do you have a citation for that legal holding, or is it your personal judicial opinion... Chief Justice Roberts?

      Delete
    11. Someone is very jealous of Attorney on the blog tonight, isn't she.

      Delete
    12. Federal internet based case law as well as personal jurisdiction are being looked at. And he did try to sue in Georgia. It was not allowed. So he came here. He is allowed to sue me here. Missouri has personal jurisdiction over me no doubt. 'Course, he's going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I did the things he claims. Since I didn't, he may have a wee bit of trouble doing that. The show may be interesting to watch though. He wants a jury trial. lol. Will never happen, but wouldn't that be funny to watch the facial expressions of the jury as he gives his closing argument. "And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.... she's a pathological liar because I think she is, the end."

      Delete
    13. Hey, it's perfectly fine for someone to disagree with my analysis; I'm certainly not infallible, and—far more consequentially—it's always entirely possible that there's some important detail about a particular jurisdiction's law (such as Missouri's) or a particular area of law (such as personal jurisdiction) that I'm simply ignorant of. If so, there is a significant likelihood that some general statement I've made is wrong in this specific instance.

      But, c'mon, we lawyers are all about caveats and disclaimers, right? (I certainly am, don't you all think?) Somehow I don't see too many of them in Anon 9:52's comment. To quote, again:

      Missouri has no interest in and therefore no power to compel an out of state ISP to provide the identity of an out of state poster unless the offending post somehow targeted or involved Missouri.

      It's simply obvious (isn't it?) that any statement posted on the internet "involve[s] Missouri," in that anything posted on the internet is available to and therefore, at least in theory, is read in Missouri.

      To the extent that Windsor's lawsuit is a defamation lawsuit, the publication element—i.e., the transmission of the allegedly defamatory statement to someone other than the publisher himself—clearly "involve[s] Missouri," because all of the relevant statements were published in Missouri as well as everywhere else on the planet that has unfettered access to the internet.

      So declaring that Missouri "has no interest in" Windsor's claims "unless the offending post somehow targeted or involved Missouri" simply begs the question: does an internet defamation suit like this necessarily "involve[ ]" Missouri?

      The concept of defamation-on-the-internet is not exactly brand new, so I would presume that several courts have examined questions of personal jurisdiction in such cases. It's entirely possible that those courts have ruled that a state like Missouri, in a case like this, has no personal jurisdiction over a claim that Defendant A, in state X, defamed Plaintiff B, in state Y—when neither X nor Y is Missouri. But it's also possible that some court or other has ruled, explicitly or implicitly, that posting a defamatory comment on the internet implies giving one's consent to be dragged into court in any jurisdiction into which that comment is transmitted.

      Which is why I asked for a legal citation. I'm betting more than one court has looked at this issue, but I can't tell you (without spending a fair amount of time looking it up) what they've decided.

      Anyway: the "Missouri has no interest" paragraph is frustrating to this practitioner because it purports to be saying something very solid and self-evident, when in fact (given the ending caveat regarding "unless the offending post somehow ... involved Missouri") it (1) actually says nothing relevant at all, begging the real question that's at issue, and (2) is founded on no apparent authority other than an anonymous commenter's say-so.

      Poor form, Anonymous, poor form. This is not how members of my (our?) profession are supposed to conduct ourselves.

      Delete
    14. Susan is the anonymous poster & she isn't from your profession Attorney so please do not feel insulted. It's her nature to belittle.

      Delete
    15. That is the problem. We little people can talk about the law and we make mistakes and whatnot and that is to be expected. Now when we go online or try to get into activism, we have to deal with sovereigns and other sordid types who think they know the law and target the vulnerable to play act at being heroes. And profiting from this no less.

      Delete
    16. To clarify, everyone named (or not named) besides me, at least in this particular suit, is what "we" are looking at the personal jurisdiction for. And so far, it looks as if all but me are easily dismissed. ie; Attorney's explanation of plaintiff A versus respondent B from state x and y.

      It's the discovery portion that he wants, because he wants Ginger as well as me and everyone else on the planet that may not agree with him or embarrassed him. Which doesn't get him very far because I don't have sufficient knowledge on 99% of it.

      Delete
    17. Ms. Overstreet:
      Federal internet based case law as well as personal jurisdiction are being looked at.

      I certainly hope so. A half-hour of research would make any competent litigator more useful to a defendant like you than my half-assed comments are. (I have to charge money for whole-assed analysis.)

      Glad to hear your lawyer is on the case (so to speak).

      And he did try to sue in Georgia. It was not allowed. So he came here.

      A-ha. Yes, that makes obvious sense. Poor, poor Bill.

      'Course, he's going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I did the things he claims.

      Really? Not preponderance of the evidence? That's the more common civil-court standard.

      I could look up Missouri law to figure out which one is right, but then this wouldn't be a half-assed comment (or at least paragraph) anymore. I'm sure your lawyer is on top of it.

      He wants a jury trial. lol. Will never happen....

      Agreed. Windsor flatly does not understand the Seventh Amendment, and his fetish for juries is just silly.

      Delete
    18. Ms. Overstreet, again:
      To clarify....

      Yes, clearly you're working with an attorney who knows what he or she is doing. That's very good news.

      Now my only concern is that he/she has enough stamina (including, alas, material resources) to weather the inevitable Windsor paper storm.

      Delete
    19. No, it is preponderance of evidence. 51% likelihood. But to me, he's going to have a hard time getting to, say, 10%. I am going to do my best to make him prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    20. He has stamina. I'm sure of it. Thank God.

      Delete
    21. Do you have a citation for that legal holding, or is it your personal judicial opinion... Chief Justice Roberts?

      Well, I think it's a tax.

      Delete
    22. Ah Attorney, you are a person after my own heart!

      See, the Anon Susan is, for lack of better words, a moron. She will tell you the sky is green just for the sake of argument. I generally don't like name calling but with Susan there just is no other explanation. No matter your education or knowledge she will talk down to you. So feel free to make her look as dumb as she is.

      Thank you for correcting me. I get a tad confused sometimes when it comes to some civil law because I do not deal with it very much.

      Delete
    23. Well played, Sluggo.

      Delete
    24. If I may but in, I had two questions relative to my status as a possible Doe -

      1) Was Bill's complaint in GA rejected re: his vexatious status?

      2) I read something posted here that I thought may have meant the MO complaint was filed without the court's full knowledge of Bill's status. I'm assuming I misunderstood the post as there doesn't appear to be any grounds for dismissal. But what does Bill have to provide to the court to get approval to file his complaint?

      Delete
    25. Judging by the PACER docs I have, he informed the courts. The docs may be found on the Archives files on FB or I can send them in the morning.

      Delete
    26. Sorry, yappy - I forgot you had the docs.

      Delete
    27. Georgia: submitted request to sue us , had to provide the vexatious ruling, was denied.

      Missouri: submitted request to sue, had to provide the vexatious ruling, was allowed, filed suit in lower county court. He requested the permission from state judge in Western Missouri District, provided the complaint, the vexatious thing, and prayed the judge allow it because he said he fears his life, and provided bond information. Then filed suit in Missouri 15th Judicial district, in circuit court.

      My personal opinion: the allowing judge wasn't as privy as the Georgia judge on his history, may or may not have read the entire thing, and took the wanted protection order plea into consideration. No idea, just guessing here.

      Delete
    28. No prob. NBTDT, just letting you know. :)

      @Allie, is it tomorrow Windsor learn's uhhh, the new info? lol I have my popcorn ready.

      Delete
    29. Thx Allie. That's what I kind of figured. If he files in another state, it's really a crap shoot - whether a it's allowed depends on the judge and how the complaint is presented.

      Delete
    30. Attorney before I take the time to support my comment on the jurisdictional issue, may I ask what prompted you to reply to my post with the Chief Justice remark? You acknowledge that you are not an expert on personal jurisdiction and you have not researched this particular matter. Further, it is my understanding that your practice does not involve civil litigation.

      You mentioned that I disagreed with your analysis. I don't recall doing that. I saw a correct statement that one subpoena is sufficient to request the identities of multiple ISP clients. My comment only addressed the likelihood of a Missouri court compelling responses to those subpoenas.

      You say my comment was poor form. How so? I don't recall seeing any citations in your posts here.

      Delete
    31. I thought that was a rather sufficient explanation from attorney on why your statement was in poor form, Susan party of one. But as usual, you are going to need plenty of time to catch up to everyone else.

      Delete
    32. I bet she argues scripture with God~

      Delete
    33. Wow Susan, you just can't get enough of the bitch slaps from Atty?

      I agree Ginger, I thought Atty explained it quite well.

      Delete
    34. It's no surprise she needs further explanation. Notice how she belittle's attorney's expertise?

      Delete
    35. Hello again, Anonymous.

      Attorney before I take the time to support my comment on the jurisdictional issue, may I ask what prompted you to reply to my post with the Chief Justice remark?

      As I thought I made clear, it was the oddly haughty posture of your "Missouri has no interest in" declaration. Your legal analysis was stated as a Decree from On High—while meanwhile finessing the central question at issue, one that I had specifically emphasized in my earlier comment. Your confident pose rang rather hollow.

      You acknowledge that you are not an expert on personal jurisdiction....

      Indeed not; are you? Have you conducted research into the specific application of the International Shoe standards to an internet defamation (and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) suit? Seriously?

      Further, it is my understanding that your practice does not involve civil litigation.

      You are mistaken. My practice involves almost nothing but civil litigation. However, I don't practice in Missouri, Georgia, or Texas. Nor have I needed to analyze personal jurisdiction in several years. And I prefer not to make confident assertions that exceed the legal subjects (e.g., jurisdictions, areas of law) I am thoroughly conversant in. Again, how about you?

      You mentioned that I disagreed with your analysis. I don't recall doing that.

      Okay. I took you to be implying otherwise—especially given that you entered a thread to which I had contributed a (typically) caveat-laden submission and proceeded to blast blanket statements about (for example) what the state of Missouri uncomplicatedly "has no interest in," directly contravening my presentation of a few central legal questions that (to date, on this blog) remain open. That smelled a wee bit hostile.

      My comment only addressed the likelihood of a Missouri court compelling responses to those subpoenas.

      ...On stated grounds that seem to me notably vague and question-begging—though I doubt too many people who are unfamiliar with civil procedure would notice the manner in which you avoided the fundamental legal issues in question.

      You say my comment was poor form. How so?

      I believe I've explained that at length, both in previous comments and now in this one.

      I don't recall seeing any citations in your posts here.

      Again, you're mistaken. I have in fact posted a handful of citations in my contributions to this blog.

      More commonly, however, I make a practice of stating general principles applicable to a particular question and then noting the areas that remain unclear, frequently because of my lack of familiarity with a particular local provision (I've lost count of the number of times I've made it clear in comments on this blog that I'm not familiar with the peculiarities of Missouri law and procedure) or area of the law (one high-traffic subject lately has been collections, as first Maid of the Mist and now an AUSA in Georgia attempt to extract money from Bill Windsor to settle the debts he's incurred; as I've mentioned repeatedly, I know very little about the law and procedure governing collections).

      In my professional experience, it is decidedly poor form for an attorney to represent or imply that (s)he has knowledge or understanding regarding a legal issue when in fact (s)he (1) has little experience in that particular area of the law and (2) has not spent time conducting conscientious research into it. Pretending to legal knowledge one does not actually possess is decidedly poor professional practice—if it does not indeed flatly violate the ethical standards of the legal profession.

      Delete
    36. I weep. Your comments are so articulate & perfect (& appreciated), as always.
      I heart you, @Attorney. Can I sit by you, today?
      ***waving***

      Delete
    37. I am thankful for the actions of 3 attorneys today.

      Delete
    38. yappy is smiling from ear to earMay 28, 2013 at 10:50 PM

      @Attorney. Incredible! Very concise and articulate, I certainly learn a great deal from you and it's always appreciated. Your last sentence is exceptionally accurate and worth repeating!

      Pretending to legal knowledge one does not actually possess is decidedly poor professional practice—if it does not indeed flatly violate the ethical standards of the legal profession.

      :)

      Delete
    39. @Anon Susan, I hope that helps!

      @Attorney, BRAVO! "That smelled a wee bit hostile." Oh it was. I bow to you!

      **Bowing**

      Delete
    40. “Hey, it's perfectly fine for someone to disagree with my analysis… it was the oddly haughty posture of your "Missouri has no interest in" declaration… to blast blanket statements about (for example) what the state of Missouri uncomplicatedly "has no interest in," directly contravening my presentation of a few central legal questions …”.

      I see. In fact, I was merely agreeing with and expounding upon your ^8:24 pm comments, at ¶ 4. Perhaps you over reacted a tad?

      It is nice of you to take the time and trouble to explain the simplest of legal principles to the readers here. Disclaimers are certainly necessary when you are in doubt. These are your choices to make.

      Others may only wish to contribute a few words to highlight the issues that will control the question. Interested readers can always ask for more detail, just as some readers may choose to attack the contributor, lol. We are all free to choose.

      “Anyway: the "Missouri has no interest" paragraph is frustrating to this practitioner because it purports to be saying something very solid and self-evident…”

      A simple request for clarification would have been sufficient. I was speaking about the scenario you mentioned, where Windsor, who has no ties to Missouri, attempts to bring claims there against an out of state defendant, who presumably lacks sufficient general contacts with Missouri. It is solid and self evident, that specific PJ depends upon the relations among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Hence my caveat, “…unless the offending post somehow ... involved Missouri".

      “Have you conducted research into the specific application of the International Shoe standards to an internet defamation (and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) suit? Seriously?”

      I am very well versed in this area of law. I will refrain from listing the flaws in your hypothesis, but it is clear that as you say, torts and PJ are not your forte’.

      “I prefer not to make confident assertions that exceed the legal subjects (e.g., jurisdictions, areas of law) I am thoroughly conversant in. Again, how about you?” I certainly agree with that practice. When you are confident about the legal subject and you are thoroughly conversant in it, do you still hesitate to make statements? I do not.

      “In my professional experience, it is decidedly poor form for an attorney to represent or imply that (s)he has knowledge or understanding regarding a legal issue when in fact (s)he (1) has little experience in that particular area of the law and (2) has not spent time conducting conscientious research into it. Pretending to legal knowledge one does not actually possess is decidedly poor professional practice—if it does not indeed flatly violate the ethical standards of the legal profession.” I couldn’t agree more.

      At ^9:13 pm you make some sweeping assumptions in your final paragraph. Surely know It is equally poor form, to make such assumptions about a stranger's education, experience, or expertise. Not everyone feels the need to announce his or her credentials to strangers. Again, we are all entitled to our own choices.

      Delete
    41. Whatever your credentials may be Susan, it's clear you are not an attorney.

      Delete
    42. "Others may only wish to contribute a few words to highlight the issues that will control the question. Interested readers can always ask for more detail, just as some readers may choose to attack the contributor, lol. We are all free to choose."

      Yes, but Susan is always dependable. She MUST give her opinion regardless of the fact that nobody cares.

      Little Miss. Wanna-Know-it-All seems to think that presenting a blanket statement as fact is the same as being upfront that that a particular assertion encompasses generalities.

      Little Miss Wanna Know it All is quite obviously back pedaling. (or in her case - peddling) And, nobody was ever buyin' what she was sellin'.



      "I am very well versed in this area of law. I will refrain from listing the flaws in your hypothesis, but it is clear that as you say, torts and PJ are not your forte’. "

      Read: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but if I don't have to talk about it, maybe I can get away with it."

      "At ^9:13 pm you make some sweeping assumptions in your final paragraph. Surely know It is equally poor form, to make such assumptions about a stranger's education, experience, or expertise. Not everyone feels the need to announce his or her credentials to strangers."

      Attorney didn't make sweeping assumptions about your education, experience, or expertise. Your own pontifications gave attorney more than enough evidence to come to the conclusion that regardless of whatever education or intellect you think you have, as always, you are talking out of your ass.



      Delete
    43. "She MUST give her opinion regardless of the fact that nobody cares."

      You mean the way you have offered the post above, wherein you attempt to respond on behalf of someone else?

      Delete
    44. @ Anonymous 3:09 - the response to which you refer was on behalf of the the entire clubhouse, which we all appreciate.


      @ Anonymous 2:08 - Priceless:

      "Your own pontifications gave attorney more than enough evidence to come to the conclusion that regardless of whatever education or intellect you think you have, as always, you are talking out of your ass."

      Delete
    45. @Anon 3:09,

      Can you please provide citations where I asserted that I was posting on behalf of anyone other than myself?

      Delete
    46. Susan? Hey! PTFD & put your AIS!
      P=pipe
      T=the
      F=fuq
      D=down
      & put your
      A=ass
      I=in
      S=seat
      The Good Lord gave you 2 ears & 2 eyes & only 1 mouf, so you could listen & observe 2X (twice) as much as you blather!
      & Sus?
      We've moved forward 3 days> pedal yourself into the present & chalk this up to you've been outwitted, outworded, just outright, outsmarted. Again. Throw it over your shoulders & tie it in a bow. It is what it is.
      We ALL hope this helps.

      THE ENTIRE CLUBHOUSE & the other ANONs,

      Delete
    47. Greetings again, Anonymous.

      I see. In fact, I was merely agreeing with and expounding upon your ^8:24 pm comments....

      That was far, far less than clear.

      Interested readers can always ask for more detail....

      Interested readers are also capable of being badly misled by (presumably unintentional) implications of few-word contributions that lack relevant nuance. Oversimplified legal analyses can be very dangerous, as I hope you recognize.

      A simple request for clarification would have been sufficient.

      Readers without an extensive legal background had no idea that "a simple request for clarification" was even necessary to elucidate issues that you glossed over.

      Presuming, as it appears, that you don't have a relevant citation regarding the application of the International Shoe doctrine to internet defamation cases, I don't particularly need further clarification from you. The people who do need it wouldn't know that they need to ask you for it. Such are the pitfalls of oversimplification.

      I was speaking about the scenario you mentioned, where Windsor, who has no ties to Missouri, attempts to bring claims there against an out of state defendant, who presumably lacks sufficient general contacts with Missouri.

      First, the International Shoe standard only requires sufficient contacts, not sufficient general contacts, in order to meet the Constitutional requirement for personal jurisdiction. In order to defeat a personal jurisdiction defense, Windsor would not need to demonstrate that Missouri has general jurisdiction over any defendant.

      Second, how can you possibly "presume" that the defendants lack sufficient contacts with Missouri? Windsor has explicitly alleged that the defendants have continually defamed him on the internet. Both the internet and the allegedly defamatory statements the defendants posted on it are widely available in Missouri. Are those facts not enough to establish sufficient contacts (or even sufficient general contacts) with Missouri—for the purposes of Missouri's long-arm statute and state and federal case law pertaining to personal jurisdiction?

      I asked you for a citation because anyone taking the position you are (and it appears, from Ms. Overstreet's comment, that one or more defendants are taking that position) would badly need to cite some authority to support it. It appears that Ms. Overstreet's attorney can cite such authority. It also appears that you can't. I call that approach "poor form"; a judge in Lafayette County might well call it "Motion to Dismiss denied."

      Hence my caveat, “…unless the offending post somehow ... involved Missouri".

      As I've pointed out, that caveat simply finesses the actual legal question, which is whether "offending post[s]" on the internet always and necessarily "involve[ ] Missouri," because they have indisputably been published there. And once again, I note that no one who hasn't had a thorough grounding in principles of defamation law and/or personal jurisdiction would even notice that you buried the relevant legal issue in a caveat that would be impenetrable to them.

      Have you conducted research into the specific application of the International Shoe standards to an internet defamation (and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) suit? Seriously?

      I am very well versed in this area of law.

      I'll take that as a "no."

      you make some sweeping assumptions in your final paragraph.

      I do? Such as what?

      I don't see any statement that's necessarily directed at you anywhere in that paragraph. If you are not an attorney, or if you are not here falsely "represent[ing] or imply[ing] that [you] ha[ve] knowledge or understanding regarding a legal issue," then that paragraph does not apply to you at all.

      I think several of us remain somewhat unconvinced on one or both of those issues, however.

      Delete
    48. @ Attorney: where do you practice? I want to move there in case I need representation. And, I think I'm in love........

      Delete
    49. Yeah! What NothingBetterToDoToday said! Me too! Me too! U-Haul backed up to door now!

      Delete
    50. "Attorney" as I read through your various posts, I can see that your knowledge is far more advanced than mine. It was foolish of me to comment on a matter of law in your presence. I have only managed to embarrass myself and I beg your pardon.

      With your aptitude for this subject you might consider giving some of your time to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You could probably teach them a thing or two!


      Delete
    51. "Clean Up on Aisle 5, Irv! We need clean up on Aisle 5, STAT! Snoozan has lost her marbles!"

      Delete
    52. Annnnndddd keep going.....aren't you going to apologize also to all those you have laughed at and hurt and stalked and argued with and talked down to while pretending to be a legal expert despite your lack of training in the law in an actual accredited school?

      Delete
    53. I have a feeling Susan wasn't apologizing to Attorney. It sounds like her old condescending self.

      Delete
    54. Agreed, like everything else about her, it was inauthentic. Susan has never been truthful about who she is and why she is here.

      Delete
    55. He's sick Susan. Have you seen his latest video? This obsession and lack of sleep will kill him. His skin is clammy and gray. Does he still look attractive to you? He needs a doctor Susan. Attacking us won't help him.

      Delete
    56. I have a feeling even Bill would reject Susan

      Delete
    57. [A]s I read through your various posts, I can see that your knowledge is far more advanced than mine.

      Well, my goodness, Anonymous. I don't think my clients would appreciate it if I just up and folded (even facetiously) every time I'm faced with opposing counsel who's (1) competent and (2) unwilling to give up without an argument.

      It's difficult to function as a litigator if one gets testy and snide every time one's arguments are rebutted. In light of the fact that I haven't even asserted that your position is substantively wrong (again: my goodness!), your hostility is hard to understand.

      Delete
    58. Is there a client funding an argument here? Let’s review:

      You said you have limited knowledge of PJ. I wrote a two-sentence post commenting on some of the factors that are important to the discussion. You responded with the testy/snide Chief Justice remark, followed by a lengthy post espousing your personal opinion on how people should write on the Internet.

      My response provided you with an easy out. All you had to do was say you read my original post as a challenge, adjust your attitude a bit, and if interested, enter into a civil discussion. Instead, you replied with a hostile, assumption-laden attack.

      I’m not hostile, I just recognize when it is pointless to discuss the law with someone. You don’t appear to be following what I’ve written thus far and when I answered your question about my knowledge in this area, you summarily rejected my response.

      Your posts have been less about the law and more about attacking me personally. “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

      Finally, you say you are unwilling to give up without an argument, but you previously said you didn’t want to take a half hour to consider the subject in detail. Argument on this complicated area of law, will take considerable time. I’ll leave the ball in your court.

      Delete
    59. Classic Susan. Proclaim she knows everything yet states nothing of substance whatsoever and avoids having to prove her lack of knowledge by yet again attempting to belittle the attorney while holding herself in high regard. Yes you are a very hostile person who is incapable of admitting you're ever wrong. You really need serious help.

      Delete
    60. Susan, can you read? Comprehend what you read?
      I'm guessing, no.

      "My response provided you with an easy out."

      Attorney just posted " I don't think my clients would appreciate it if I just up and folded (even facetiously) every time I'm faced with opposing counsel who's (1) competent and (2) unwilling to give up without an argument."

      I take that as Attorney not looking for a way out. In fact is sounds more like you getting bitch slapped, again, and you looking for a way out.

      Yet again Susan, you try to leave yourself a way out with a snide remark. Seriously do you like getting bitch slapped?
      "I’ll leave the ball in your court."

      Delete
  16. Here's another one trying to keep Bill on track.

    Michael Silva im working a Grand Jury Complaint on corruption im exposeing in TEHAMA COUNTY CALIFORNIA many officials with no valid Oath of Office. they just refused to look into it so now, rebutting their assumption and requested their valid Oath of Office

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed that comment went un-noticed. Just like most comments on his page. Sad these people don't just move along already.

      Delete
  17. He doesn't even know what county I live in yet "the sheriff" asked him to get my address? Really boob? What sheriff? The sheriff of America? Lol. Yes sir! I'll get right on getting that info to you for "the sheriff". And didn't I give you an order to cease and desist? Your email is a direct violation sir! NOW SCRAM!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So he doesn't just pretend to be Judge, Jury, Executioner, Attorney (with no power) he wants to also play Omar Sharif (Sheriff) Oh, he thinks he can be anyone he wants to be. LMAO Alrightythen.

      Delete
    2. My 9yr old son is slicker than Bill. Does he really think ANYONE is gonna fall for his crap? He is just pathetic. I am amazed he's lasted this long.

      Delete
    3. Interesting that he did not post a picture of said Sheriff. He hasn't filmed outside a courthouse or police station in a few days nor has he posted a picture of his car. Did he get in trouble or did he just get bored?

      Delete
    4. Omar, Sheriff of America...LOVE It!

      Delete
  18. Lawless America: "this is a fake posting. there is a meme johnson. you did not obtain her permission. this is harassment from joeyisalittlekid, and you just violated texas criminal statutes. how stupid are you people? it's amazing to me that people can be as stupid as you. i love adding the evidence and names to the pile."

    Bill if your over here reading, what meme johnson did someone use eh? There are probably 1,000 or more meme johnsons. Such as there are thousands of William Windsors. You can not file charges or make a complaint because they are not using your name. I am laughing so hard that I have a stomach ache. I think you need to go for a walk and get some fresh air or more sleep. You might have sleep deprivation from all the driving and staying up all night maybe your developing schizophrenia IDK. My advice hire an attorney PS I have a pre-paid legal plan I have representation in every state. They will show up in any court for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL so now he wants to sue on someone else's behalf? Oh that's funny. Good catch.

      Delete
    2. More like he wants to put people in prison for having nicknames on Facebook.

      Delete
    3. XXXXX XXXXXXX Well Mr. Windsor, even if there was another Meme Johnson, that still would not violate the Texas statute that you posted. You ask how stupid other people are when we are all asking that question of you. How dumb are you Mr. Windsor? So lets revisit this shall we. Texas Penal Code SEC. 33.07 A person commits an offense if the person, without obtaining the other person's consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person, uses the name or persona of another person. So, let's break this down. First, if there is another Meme and that Meme feels that her name was used to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person, then Meme would be the victim not you. Second, (which technically doesn't apply because you are not the "victim") the post that was made by Meme was in no way used to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person. It was merely pointing out the fact that you are misinformed about Texas law.
      2 minutes ago

      Delete
    4. You are correct Sean. Sleep deprivation can lead to psychosis, or car accidents or a shortened life span. He needs to go home. He needs to sleep. And drugs or no drugs, he needs a slow yet thorough detox, gentle exercise and healthful food.

      Delete
  19. This overweight, delusional, dirty old man's vocation consists of little more than preying on people when they are emotionally weak and begging for money, forever seeking the juvenile "like" or other adolescent favor.

    Someone commented above that they were surprised he's lasted this long. Whether or not he has is subjective. If his current gypsy-like life is anything near an existence, I think I'd prefer to choke to death on my pie.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lawless America In my opinion, Barry Goldstein is incompetent and should be ignored by anyone with intelligence in the world of family courts, abuse, and domestic violence.
    For starters, I have to question the intelligence, or lack thereof, of anyone who would defend or support the criminals with the so-called American Mothers Political Party.
    Goldstein has made scurrilous comments about me, but he doesn’t know me, doesn’t know a thing about me, has never spoken with me (and never will), and should be smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
    Goldstein claims I don’t understand the gendered nature of “the problems we are dealing with.” How utterly ridiculous. I fully understand the two primary genders. I know that men lie and lie and lie and use handbooks in divorce to ensure they take advantage of the mother of their children. It makes me sick. But I also know that women lie and lie and lie, pretend to be abused when they weren’t, pretend their children were abused when they weren’t, and will say and do anything to hurt their ex. Meanwhile, in both cases, the children are terribly abused by the process, and those with true stories get obscured by all the serial liars and abusers.
    Should we consider Barry Goldstein to be similar to Richard Gardner?
    When I became a part of the Lawless America project, I spent years learning from the women and men who claim they are victims, and I am closing in on 365 days on the road, face-to-face with thousands. I believe I have interviewed far more people than Goldstein will ever hope to interview. I was devastated to hear stories from women all across America….and then to learn that a number of these women lied. If they will lie about me (as some have), then I can’t possibly believe that they are telling the truth about anything else.
    I do everything humanly possible to assist and support genuine protective mothers. But I will also do everything in my power to expose the liars and the lies.
    I am about to decide that nothing meaningful will ever be done to correct the problems with family courts, abuse, and domestic violence because virtually all of the groups are haters. There are the father haters and the mother haters. Many who pretend to be for honesty and the children are often little more than actors. People with what they claim are “non-profit associations” are often in it for the money.
    I will not work with anyone who supports Barry Goldstein, the so-called American Mothers Political Party, Clodine Dumbrowski, Lorraine Tipton, Kimberly Wigglesworth, Kathleen Russell, the so-called Center for Judicial Excellence, Connie Valentine, the so-called California Protective Parents Association, or the so-called Battered Mothers Custody Conference. No one who has anything to do with these people or groups will be in our movies of videos because these people and groups support the twisted criminal activities of the AMPP folks. Many of these people and groups hate fathers and love liars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there ANYONE Bill would ever admit to being smarter or better than him? His need to discredit everyone on the face of the earth show's he is not dealing with a full deck of cards. Of course it never could be the fact HE is the one with the problem.

      Do you notice something though? He doesn't call him names like he does women.

      And that list of those you will not work with is incredibly long Bill. Why? Because they don't agree with your every move? Please tell us again how everyone BUT YOU is the problem?

      Delete
    2. People with what they claim are “non-profit associations” are often in it for the money.

      Uh huh...

      So...I try to tell people I meet why this guy, Billy Windsor, is so interesting, and I usually begin by saying his actions simply can't be hyperbolized; indeed, to say he's vexatious, rapacious and hypocritical is like saying the Titanic is a little damp.

      I can't believe Billy isn't up to his pie-smacking lips in law suits!

      Delete
    3. Well if he fully understands the genders then why is he getting divorced? And if he has done everything humanly possible then why doesn't he let a homeless mother live in his vacant house? You could pick every sentence of this to pieces.

      Delete
    4. I can't believe Billy isn't up to his pie-smacking lips in law suits!

      I need to clarify: I meant Windsor as the defendant.

      Delete
    5. All this because Barry made some accurate comments/opinions against Windsor, and the retaliatory harassment starts.

      If Barry thought the way Windsor does about slander, libel and defamation, he could sue Windsor. Bill just did what he blames others for, BUT Windsor does it maliciously, without merit, and only to discredit and hurt someone who had a very valid opinion.

      Bill has said he would kick out these people several times, yet, they are all still there. He has NO idea who's supporting them, it's all hot air. He can start with Julia Fletcher, who is friends with all those groups, and shares their status'. Oh no...what to do, what to do...he threw a tantrum, made an ultimatum, is he lying again?

      Delete
    6. Barry has big shoulders. He has been attacked for years now, and by tougher than bill.

      Delete
  21. Well, she posted it twice and made 2 extra comments to make sure he saw the article this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill is now talking about Barry G yall because he thinks attorney on here is him obiviously lmao!

      Delete
    2. I really do not believe Bill believes Barry Goldstein is the one speaking on here. He's upset about the dog blog article. If he thought that, he would claim he's one of the "Joeys".

      Delete
    3. Interesting timing. I wondered if he thought that too.

      Delete
    4. NothingbettertodotodayMay 28, 2013 at 9:06 AM

      My comment ^^^^ was meant to be a reply to Bill's post - ATW blog initially posted the Goldstein article under posts by others. Apparently Bill did not read it, then he deleted that section from his page. ATW then reposted the article in 2 places, apparently to make sure Bill saw it. Which he did. I think Bill's dissertation is in response to Goldstein's remarks about him.

      Like yappy, I find it interesting that Bill doesn't think Goldstein is a pathetic pathological lying scum bag. And where is Goldstein's C,D @ A for never speaking Bill's name again?

      Delete
    5. Goldstein was very mild in addressing Billie and maybe he doesn't realize everything that is happening. I wonder if Goldstein would be so forgiving if he saw Billie's response.

      Delete
    6. I don't view Goldstein's comments as forgiving. IMO, he did a very nice job of pointing out that Bill and everyone on both sides of the cause issue has behaved inappropriately. He was direct without attacking others or behaving inappropriately himself. If Mr. Goldstein read Bill's response, I'd be willing to bet it is not unexpected and is irrelevant to his mission.

      Mr. Goldstein even goes so far as to own his own sexist views, which I appreciate. However, he sells his female associates short with several ideas that excuse inappropriate behavior "because of the inherent power that men have". Yes, men are physically more powerful. But, women have an inherent spiritual and intellectual power that is equal to and surpasses men in some cases. They just have to FIND and USE that power - without regard for what any one man thinks.

      Delete
    7. I LOVE THIS. It's perfect! Thank you NBTDT, spot on!

      "But, women have an inherent spiritual and intellectual power that is equal to and surpasses men in some cases. They just have to FIND and USE that power - without regard for what any one man thinks."

      Delete
    8. I agree with most of your post, but I would respectfully offer it would had been better if your last phrase was, "without regard for what any one person thinks." I see women attacking women all the time, and, IMHO, not for legit reasons.

      Delete
    9. Good point Sluggo.

      Delete
    10. Here's another tidbit about Billy's rebuttal: Billy claims he is much more of an expert than Goldstein because he (Billy) has interviewed thousands of DV victims, but IMHO, that's like claiming he's a superior surgeon because he's seen many more autopsies. In short, Windsor is confusing a correlation with a cause.

      Delete
    11. @ Sluggo: You do make a very good point. And, I think that was Mr. Goldstein's point as well.

      As regards to my comments and thoughts, it seems counterproductive that the women in these groups continue to rely on men to "save" them. In my view, trusting Bill and allowing him to raise "tremendous hopes" is not any different than placing all their faith and hopes in Mr. Goldstein or Mr. Lundy (sp?) that they will affect the desired changes. That is why my comment was specific to men - to get ahead, they must find themselves and quit looking for the power of men to "save" them. As long was these women view men in general as "inherently more powerful" in every aspect, they will repeat the cycles of abuse and victimization.

      Delete
    12. @ Sluggo: re your comment @ 11:54 - I am reminded of a conversation I overheard between my mother and my sister, who was expecting her 1st baby. The doctor, a man, had given my sister a due date of June 15th. My mother argued that the baby wouldn't come until the first part of July. My sister indignantly replied that she was very confident in her doctor, after all he had been her OB-GYN for several years. My mother, who had 4 children, responded "well maybe so, but I've given birth to a lot more babies than that he has, that baby will be here the first of July".

      That baby was born on July 1st.



      Delete
  22. Hahaha Bill was told again, about his stupidity with regards to the law. (This is from the previous posts re TX law)

    XXXXX XXXXXXX Well Mr. Windsor, even if there was another Meme Johnson, that still would not violate the Texas statute that you posted. You ask how stupid other people are when we are all asking that question of you. How dumb are you Mr. Windsor? So lets revisit this shall we. Texas Penal Code SEC. 33.07 A person commits an offense if the person, without obtaining the other person's consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person, uses the name or persona of another person. So, let's break this down. First, if there is another Meme and that Meme feels that her name was used to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person, then Meme would be the victim not you. Second, (which technically doesn't apply because you are not the "victim") the post that was made by Meme was in no way used to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person. It was merely pointing out the fact that you are misinformed about Texas law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just sayin'..... I'm loving the Johnson family :)

      You ask how stupid other people are when we are all asking that question of you. How dumb are you Mr. Windsor?

      Sadly Bill won't let facts of the law get in the way of his master plan to rule the world (population of 1) while the rest are locked behind bars or put to death.

      Delete
    2. Lawless America my uncle is steve johnson. This is a fake post above. it violates the texas penal code.

      Delete
    3. You know Bill just because you say it violates the Texas Penal code doesn't make it so.

      Wow.

      Delete
    4. In all the world there is only one Steve Johnson? Small world.

      Delete
  23. Bill F u .....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Robin AintMizbahavin Hairs ok im confused which post is the fake post? and for the naysayers pretty soon you will be begging for the likes of Mr windsor and others like him who are fighting for rights and freedoms that are GOD GIVEN TO US. not only that those of you who are siding with the criminals need to remember this. once they ( elites) dont need you anymore. it will be you and your family who will be killed off. how pathetic are you people to fight to enslave YOURSELVES AND YOUR DESCENDANTS? that is all you are doing. they dont like you only using you. i mean someone has to take blame when the truth hits the light and i know you don't think... you will scurry along? you're not that high up with the satanist who are destroying our country and world with the your help. if you WASN'T DIRTY IN THE FIRST. then they wouldnt have you by the sacks. but in the words of Mr. Windsor. YOU SHOULD NEVER START A FIGHT WITH THOSE WHO HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.



    OD on Kook Aid BIG TIME

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OH MY!

      Robin AintMizbahavin Hairs is my friend's cousin's aunt's neighbor's sister!

      She has no right to write something like that. It breaks the facebook penal code SEC 666.545677545.43322.43212 in my make believe handbook of crimes. Imprison her immediately for life!

      Delete
    2. I disagree. He has more he could lose. He could lose his life--and no that is not a death threat---the man is determined not to take care of himself. He could lose his driver's license. His business license. He could be imprisoned or placed in mandatory inpatient counseling. He could lose what little support from his fans are left. His ability to ever be trusted should he try to turn his life around. And then some.

      Delete
    3. And then of course, once we know that LE has taken him off the streets for the protection of the public, people will forget about him and go on with their lives. No one will talk about him, and he will not have access to the internet to bother them.

      Delete
    4. And then we might have to tweak the lyrics to this song a bit. 5 people on 1 guitar, sounds about right. I want to be the one on the end tapping.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9NF2edxy-M

      Delete
    5. LOL LNM FUNNY!!!

      Delete
  25. You may no longer see comments on this Facebook page. I haven't figured out another way to keep the riff raff out. When LawlessAmerica.com finally gets restored, I will set up a chat forum there.

    So...the riff raff are of less social status than Nobodies? I'm thinking Windsor got a nastygram from FB recently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was mention of a chat program last year but he made some excuse then about it not working. Truth is he'd have to pay for it.

      Delete
  26. OMG Julia is trying to cover her ass from getting BOOTED out because she is a effin FENCE walker, two faced, LYING BITCH. Stop KISSING BILLS ASS, you are BUSTED, and if she doesn't kick you to the curb, all those people you screwed over WILL FIND OUT SOON!

    Julia Fletcher Bill - Most people involved with the Center for Judicial Excellence, The Battered Mothers Custody Project and The California Protective Parents Association haven't seen the threats made to you and other family court reform advocates. They haven't seen the screenshot of the knife sent to me or the accompanying vulgar threats. I'm sure they've seen some of the bullying online and they have more important things to do than to deal with bad behavior. They're probably ignoring it because no one has threatened them. I also wish they would speak up to draw the line and I don't know why they haven't already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *HE* doesn't kick

      Delete
    2. Oh, Maybe she's still kissing his ass, because she doesn't want him to interview her ex, who has the evidence and proof she lied about him abusing their child. OHHHHH YAAAAA Ok, got it. Well, a 3.5 million dollar judgment against her, is at stake here after all. Smell the motivation.

      Delete
    3. http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2005/03/in-aftermath-of-accusation.html

      http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=10162.0;wap2

      Delete
    4. Thanks Anon! So, lemme get this straight? Marlene Debek IS Julia Fletcher? correct? what other online aliases does Julia use?

      Delete
    5. Oh, Petunia - I remember researching this one a long time ago. I'll send you more stuff.

      Delete
    6. Yes!! I've been reading an interview her ex gave & the documents he has provided to the courts. He has new attorney.

      Delete
    7. Yes Petunia, they are one is the same. Her appeal was also denied. The evidence is strong against her. She lied point blank.

      Julia Fletcher/Marlene Debek seems to want Bill to back up off the groups she hangs with, without really letting him know the truth who she hangs with.

      Delete
  27. @LA FB: Cynthia Robinson: Lawless America apparel?

    Great idea; start with color-coordinated blindfold and gag.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.