Friday, June 28, 2013

Are George McDermott and Bill Windsor Identical Twins Seperated at Birth?



While Billy continues to hide in an undisclosed location for an undisclosed reason, I thought it might be interesting to look at some of these other characters that were with Bill when Lawless America was formed.  We, of course, have already looked at his number two man David Schied. But this George McDermott, like Schied and Jon Roland, were with him in the beginning.  The similarities between Bill and George are staggering.  And, we even have a tie-in with Joey Dauben in all this.

McDermott is a slow-witted "corruption" fighter who dressed up his van and drives all around Maryland fighting what he calls corruption.  He fell into this career choice after he became a self-described victim of mortgage fraud. And because the courts didn't rule in his favor, he decided to declare war on the court system.

George was a very visible part of the start of Lawless America as well as its sister group GRIP.  He was a frequent guest on Bill's Talkshoe program and supported the cause wholeheartedly.  (Notice the comments in this article.)

But apparently there was not enough room for both George and Bill to play together, and eventually he broke away from the movement but not from his "cause."  George has his own Talkshoe program.  He "advocates" for individuals who have a beef with the court system.  He frequently does poorly edited videos in front of court buildings to ramble on about whatever his subject is that day.  He even accuses the judicial system of using terrorism and calls attorneys corrupt and nothing but a group of gangsters.  George has run for Congress multiple times, and uses each endeavor to try and link more people to his cause.

George has even taken up advocacy for the infamous vexatious litigant Jeff Barron.  We of course know the Barron story quite well since he used Joey Dauben to help him create and maintain thousands of domain names in a cyber squatting effort.  The Jeff Barron case has apparently been a cattle call for all kinds of hucksters and grown-up children all over the place as it has trapped Joey, Bill, George and the infamous John Margetis who unsuccessfully tried to sue this blog.



Pictured are Jeff (on the left) and John as they emerge from a court building in yet another huge waste of taxpayer money.

McDermott runs a website, http://secretjustice.com where he records his so called judicial fraud in numerical order, along with a poor quality video with each entry.  Barron and Margetis can be found in entries 400, 401, 410, 403, 404, 405, 409, 411, 418, 419, 421, 422, and 424


223 comments:

  1. Wow, this is really unbelievable how hooked together all these people are. My guess would be that there was some kind of ego trip or power struggle, that caused the separation between them. They are promoting the same things, with the same people. Just wow!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In DC, I heard this guy was way better than Bill and when I was speaking with him in the ballroom he referred to Bill as an over confident wannabe with no experience in journalism.

      Delete
    2. Did you see him in the hallway pace, unspoken and red in the face? Dude why not say what you have to say or conversely call it a day? From the man who took on Capitol Hill, curious reaction to that man Bill.

      Delete
    3. Windsor is probably better than all of the established organizations, at marketing his cause. Through false headlines, his movie dreams, and paid advertising, he gets traffic to his site.

      The other organizations undoubtedly had their eyes on what seemed to be a large group of serious activists. They KNEW Windsor could not hold on to those people and were probably hoping to recruit them. But Windsor's followers are motivated by self interest. The other reformers are looking at the bigger picture, which is of no interest to Windsor's followers.

      Also, I'm sure McDermott was interested in seeing how the entire D.C. event unfolded. It was a study in what NOT to do and it was very interesting to watch it unfold.

      Delete
  2. I found this really poorly shot video, I was starting to get sea-sick. Anyway, it is kind of funny because George and his group are "occupying" and he got a parking ticket. OOPS. *Warning, towards the end, some loud mouth behind the camera starts screaming "Occupy the Courts", so keep your volume down.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSrqj_RfVJ8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a5Hq0PM8DE

      Delete
    2. I remember Shorty being in the news. I kinda like him. Seems like he learned his lesson, ya just can't make things that look like a bomb and leave 'em lying around on a city street. Even if you call it art. He got probation but he still made his point and he's laughing about it.

      http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/towson/ph-tt-toilet-protest-0213-20130206,0,7164802.story

      Delete
    3. http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Duane-Shorty-Davis-of-Shortys-Pit-Beef/Baltimore-Maryland-21239/Duane-Shorty-Davis-of-Shortys-Pit-Beef-DD-Shortman-Duane-Gerald-Davis-Shortys-Duane-654548

      Delete
    4. Now there ya go. I'm not the only one on the planet that takes exception to people making threats to harm other people. That is never a laughing matter. Maybe that's why Shorty lost his BBQ business.

      But taking the mini potty into court, that WAS funny, I don't care who you are....

      Delete
  3. Almost as scary as these two;

    http://cheezburger.com/2911222528

    ReplyDelete
  4. And so the plot thickens.

    Anyone care to elaborate as to why Margetis' name is spelled weird?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welp, that might be one more similarity to chalk up. Bill misspells people's names too.

      He also looks like he's had his fair share of pies. :-)

      Delete
    2. Well, in entry 400 McDermott mispronounces Margetis. If he's guessing when he said it, maybe he's guessing when he spelled it?

      Delete
    3. It is the way auto correct will catch and correct Margetis. I had to add an exception on mine.

      Delete
  5. Attorney,
    Do you know if you give a untrue testimony to congress is that against the law and what is the possible issues?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Gingersnap: Interesting web site, thanks for posting it. I don't recall hearing about Baron or Margetis getting or complaining about death threats before now.

    "because their lives have been threatened repeatedly by the corrupt courts of Dallas, Texas"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pie Man Zombie HunterJune 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM

    BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA IS TAKING A WEEK OR SO OFF. IF YOU KNOW WHERE THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN, YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS TODAY.

    But if you know, please don't tell.

    I devoted most of yesterday to filing various legal motions against Allie Overstreet. I am suing her for mega damages in court in Lafayette County Missouri.

    I have said to myself that I will resolve my living arrangements by midnight Sunday. I will finish looking at potential places to live this weekend.

    Facebook continues to pretend that www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica had nudity on it. Now Facebook has money. Maybe I can get a lawsuit to stick against them. I'll file when I get to California.

    It's laundry night.

    I continue to get asked out on dates by women. It's very flattering. I had no idea women were so aggressive. It certainly makes life easier on us shy out-of-practice bachelors. But I'm not yet comfortable with actually having a date. I've been divorced for 18 days.

    To reach Bill Windsor and Lawless America, email nobodies@att.net

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you imagine what kind of maggot-infested broads are giving him the time of day?

      Delete
    2. Thank God for alcohol and crack cocaine.

      Delete
    3. Hey, those toothless meth head women are good for some things...

      Very good, in fact.

      Delete
    4. "I continue to get asked out on dates by women. It's very flattering. I had no idea women were so aggressive. "

      Yeah, we know. They're all beautiful inside and out.

      Think Imogene Coca. Or the Tanning Mom.

      Delete
    5. Or Lawanda Page. Or maybe Rosie O'Donnell.

      Delete
    6. Pizza the Hutt.

      Delete
    7. "I continue to get asked out on dates by women. It's very flattering. I had no idea women were so aggressive. "

      Read: "Been hanging out with trailer trash..."

      Delete
    8. All in the same room and you might have a full set of teeth between them

      Delete
    9. I can't figure out where these updates by Bill are being posted. I look at his personal Facebook page & can't see anything posted since last Monday.

      Delete
    10. "Hey, Joe. You looking for a date?"

      Doesn't he understand hooker speak?

      Delete
    11. this is from his personal Facebook page .... I do not know why you can not see it


      the picture is the sign from Chile in GA.....

      Delete
    12. "Now Facebook has money. Maybe I can get a lawsuit to stick against them. I'll file when I get to California."

      Oh yeah. That'll get your main line of communication with your mindless minions open again.

      Gee, ya think FB might have an attorney or two hanging around?

      Delete
    13. @ Bob: Appears you may have been blocked.

      Delete
  8. He forgets he's been a geobachelor for much longer. So whose money is he gonna use for that house if he's broke?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't actually write that it's a house, now did he.

      While taking to himself, he said he is is looking for places to live.

      Imagine the footage he can get at a homeless shelter!

      And Sunday is Turkey Bisque Night!

      Delete
  9. I think the psychological trauma of being constantly beat up as a kid is manifesting in a very undesirable way with BW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup...clearly the Larry Mundello of his neighborhood.

      Delete
  10. Ruhh roh... Look out Brenda..

    06/28/2013

    Alias Summons Issued

    Document ID: 13-SMCC-247, for WILLIAMSON, BRENDA A. Summons issued to Jackson County Civil Process with service fee taken out of the deposit.

    06/27/2013

    Request for Alias Summons
    Plaintiff files Request for an Alias Summons for Defendant Brenda A Williamson.





    Filed By: WILLIAM MICHAEL WINDSOR


    He is slacking at his P.I. skillz. She goes the same place every July, near Anaheim, to see her auntie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha! Yep. Worked my last day today and leave tomorrow at 7am. It will be J's first time going to Disneyland. So excited. Looks like the boob will have to wait till I get back.

      Delete
  11. "BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA IS TAKING A WEEK OR SO OFF."

    What exactly is he taking a week off from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A stalking he will go, a stalking he will go. Hi ho the dairy-o a stalking he will go.

      Delete
    2. LOL he said he was taking a few days off, now it's a week? It's already been a week. He needs to stop lying to his people. He's more than likely taking several weeks, perhaps a month or more off to stalk, harass, annoy, and slander numerous people. Seems he is on a vengeance mission, using the court as a weapon. Probably just like he did in the M.O.M case. No difference. List anyone and everyone he doesn't like, for the sole purpose of harassment.

      Delete
  12. It has been a while since I looked at Bill's roots, but if I remember correctly, GRIP was formed with some of the WTP folks who were not happy with WTP, there was another group tied in too, but can't recall and haven't time to research at the moment. *~*Redd*~*

    ReplyDelete
  13. The "P" in "GRIP", stands for platform. A platform is the declared principles, aims, etc, of a political party, an organization, or an individual. In this case, the name represented nothing more than the direction Windsor intended to take on his personal crusade. There was NEVER an organization attached to GRIP.

    A handful of people offered to establish an organization but Windsor rejected all such offers. He had no intention of answering to others. Windsor thought the masses would line up behind him and blindly follow his lead. When it became clear he didn't plan to organize, the few interested parties abandoned him.

    Prior to his movie idea, Windsor liked to pretend he was the head of an organization called GRIP. He believed that claiming he was the head of an actual organization, gave credence to the letters he wrote to the press and various government officials. But no one other than Windsor EVER claimed to be a member of GRIP.

    No previously established reform group (or leader of such) EVER agreed to "follow" Windsor. They allowed him to link to their sites, some of them spoke on his "show" (promoting their own organizations in the process), but that was the extent of any "tie" in with Windsor. Most of that came to an abrupt stop when he started the stories about death threats and he was forced to discontinue his "show" because no one was listening.

    He then spent an entire summer protesting at his local courthouse. When the courts cut off all possible avenues for him to pursue any civil actions related to MoM, Windsor came up with the movie idea. THAT idea had wide appeal and he has gone from there. In sum, prior to the movie, there was NO LA to speak of. There was a lone, crazy individual, making a lot of noise, attracting other reformers for a brief period until they realized what Windsor is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But no one other than Windsor EVER claimed to be a member of GRIP." Not true. Someone told me they were a member.

      Delete
    2. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Flawlessamerica.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D770%3Avolunteer&h=lAQFssk9x

      Delete
    3. Ah, not true Anon 12:24. What is this then?
      The GRIP Steering Committee

      The following people have agreed to be on the Steering Committee for GRIP: David Schied, Will Gallison, Sally Borghese, Wes Hoyt, George McDermott, Dr. Joseph Zernik, Arnie Rosner, David Grossack, Diane Gochin, Denise Loughlin, Eliot Bernstein, Joe Norman, Larry Hohol, Jon Roland, Phil Stimac, Professor Roger Roots, and William M. Windsor.

      Others who have been asked to serve on the Steering Committee are: Ron Branson, Zena Crenshaw, Bill Corbin, Don Mashak, Jon Goodwin, Nancy Swan, Leonard Rowe, Alberta Jones, Carl Bernofsky, Betsy Combier, Dr. Linda Shelton, Kay Sieverding, Iolio Jones, Bob Schulz, and Rod Class.

      http://lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=621:what-are-the-goals-for-grip-grip-part-3&catid=107:grip-government-reform-a-integrity-platform&Itemid=105

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM
      @Anon 12:54: These are people that agreed to be part of an organization, if in fact one were ever created, lol. It never materialized. Windsor sent out email invitations and half of the people wrote back and said, "Sure, if you want to actually create an organization, I'd be interested in helping." But it never happened.

      No steering committee could have survived the first meeting, lol. As soon as they tried to create a foundation for the group, which would have required a system of checks and balances that would restrict Windsor, he would have vetoed it.

      The invitations were in response to the dozens of people that were telling him they had no intention of following a dictator and the huge drop in traffic to his website.

      So he announced a list of steering committee members. He also has a list of stalkers. How much truth is behind any of it?

      Delete
    5. Don't really care about "membership" in GRIP but those who were INVOLVED with grip, such as on the steering committee were involved, heavily...very heavily..with WTP and it was from WTP and those involved that GRIP was born. If we go back to the roots, may as well try to go back to the first hate groups.

      Delete
    6. @Anon 1:23: It's not worth arguing over, but for the record, I totally disagree that anyone other than Windsor was ever VERY HEAVILY involved with him. And I was THERE when GRIP was born.

      MANY established activists briefly attempted to guide Windsor towards something that might actually have a chance of working. But he had his own ideas and it was obvious that while he had no experience at all, he had no intention of listening to anything those with experience tried to tell him.

      GRIP was never anything more than Windsor's baby. He clearly had political ambition and he thought he could use his leadership of an activist organization to get his foot in that door. THEREFORE, it was critical that he ALONE would always be credited with the creation and leadership of that organization.

      Most of the established activists that tried to work with him, ended up publicly denouncing him.

      Delete
    7. @Anon 1:23: Can you describe what you mean by "heavily involved"? Did they try to set up some organization and if so, what efforts did they make in that regard? Did they try to give Windsor ideas about how to approach reform? Again, what would those ideas have been? Prior to the movie, he wrote letters and then he tried the grand jury stunt. He very briefly tried the contract crap and of course there was his big publicity stunt of the sign in DC.

      Were these heavily involved people meeting with Windsor?

      Delete
    8. ummmmm what is an "established activist"? Is there some junior detective merit badge system or something? Do you have to attend X amount of protests before you get to join the club? I mean Bill does have a Wikipedia page, a youtube channel, and an IMBD page. How could anyone be more "established" than that?

      Delete
    9. I use the term "established activist" to describe someone that has been working towards a given change long enough to be familiar with the overall picture. Your definition may vary.

      Delete
    10. "Most of the established activists that tried to work with him, ended up publicly denouncing him."

      Oh really and who are these activists and how did they denounce him?

      Delete
    11. @anon 4:23: Sorry, it's been two years and I never paid much attention to the names of all of the players to begin with. I could dig back through my records but I'm not that interested in accepting every challenge you throw out there.

      I don't see any point in rehashing history with you to that extent.

      Delete
    12. @anon 9:50 do you ever respond to any question or play the diversion game to avoid looking completely incompetent?

      Delete
    13. @anon 10:08: Your sentence makes no sense.

      I'm not familiar with the "diversion game". I am familiar with whether I feel like bothering to retrieve information for someone else. I'm familiar with crazy people that think their opinion matters to me.

      Delete
  14. @Anon 12:35: Interesting. I'd like to know more about that.

    @Anon 12:42: I get a warning on my pc about following that link. I assume it is a FB page showing a lot of "likes" for GRIP?

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anon 12:35: I think to be a "member" there had to be an organization. There was no organization. Windsor never recognized anyone as anything other than his "follower".

    There was no decision making process (Windsor made all decisions unilaterally), no planning strategy, no meetings between officers or members. If some people clicked a button on the Internet that said they supported Windsor, to me that does not amount to an organization.

    And if there ever was an organization, where did it go? Maybe the person that claimed to be a member can tell us what he meant when he said he was a member and maybe he can tell us where the organization went?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All good questions. You were not there when someone told me personally that they were a member of Grip.

      Delete
    2. I don't doubt someone told you they were a member. What is your point? MY point is, that I question what they meant by saying they were a member. I am interested in knowing if he meant that literally or if he simply meant he was following Windsor.

      Delete
    3. Why do you need to know about that conversation? How do you know so much about Grip?

      Delete
    4. Double talk. You said at 12:24 "But no one other than Windsor EVER claimed to be a member of GRIP."


      Delete
    5. Ya double talk.

      Anonymous June 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM
      I don't doubt someone told you they were a member.

      Anon@ 12:24 "But no one other than Windsor EVER claimed to be a member of GRIP."

      Also go back up and read the post where the members who agreed to be on the steering committee was posted.

      Delete
    6. @Anon 1:02: I stand corrected on my claim that no one EVER claimed to be a member of GRIP, based on your statement that you personally witnessed such an event. It's hard to put much credence in your statement since I don't even know who you are, but hey, I'll accept that someone, somewhere, claimed to be part of GRIP. You got me...I made an incorrect statement, I was wrong, I made a mistake, I have no problem owning that shit!





      Delete
    7. @Anon 1:00: I know so much about the fictional GRIP because I have been watching Windsor since he opened his LA site. I saw all of the posts he has since erased. I saw all of the people trying to get him to organize and I saw his responses.

      Delete
    8. @119 So you were never part of Grip then how would you know it was not real? People keep secrets.

      Delete
    9. I have to agree with anon 12:24. GRIP was a lot like LA. Nothing real, just some people saying they belonged. I was supposedly Vice President of Lawless America. But really, I was no such thing. I was a random person following Lawless America online, who volunteered to help, and Bill then announced I was VP like there was some kind of organization or company or something. There were no non profits, no meetings, no votes, no financials, no board, nothing. Just Bill and his Facebook page and website, and a bunch of people he met one time to film.

      GRIP did seem smaller, and seemed to attract a different group of people. Like the more serious government reform extremist types. But I'd venture to say there was probably never an actual organization, nor meetings, etc. The people he named as steering committee probably didn't even know it, or knew and liked the ring to it so they accepted his 'appointing' them in a few of his articles.

      I never asked to be VP, wasn't asked or even told I was VP, and there wasn't anything to be VP OF. A better description would've been 'top volunteer on facebook' or 'DC event helper'.

      He is a one man show. The people that come and go, and get tied in with him by people, whether innocent parents looking for justice or dangerous sovereigns looking for mass organization, in my opinion are just temporarily interested and drop him later when they figure out he's bogus.

      GRIP , just like LA, is just Bill exaggerating how big and powerful they are. Ya, if he got the dangerous ones to actually stick with him, we would be in trouble. But they don't. Even they, think he's an idiot. All just my opinion of course.

      How many of us said we were members of Lawless America? Hundreds, at least. But all LA was, is a guy with a website and some money. Members, as in Facebook Friends and they volunteered, asked to join his stupid fake political party, and met him a whopping one or two times.

      I'm still not convinced he has large and dangerous backers. I think he's just an old pissed off guy running around in a jeep lying to everyone and feeding his hobby of filming/political protest/marketing/publishing/litigation/vengeance.

      Delete
    10. @AnonymousJune 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM
      "So you were never part of Grip then how would you know it was not real? People keep secrets."

      OMG, WINDSOR does not keep secrets. If he made ANY progress in forming an organization, he would have been blasting it all over because he actually believed it gave him clout.

      Windsor was anxious to convince the few followers he had at that time that he was making progress. He may have kept the minutes of such a meeting secret, but he'd certainly have announced the meeting took place. If you don't know that, you don't know Windsor.

      Delete
    11. Ooh...a humor thread--I'll start:

      If you don't know Windsor can't organize three turds in a gazebo,
      you don't know Windsor.

      Delete
    12. Why didn't you warn people about him being a nut?

      Delete
    13. @Anon 2:24: No one informed me I was expected to do so, lol.

      Seriously though, anyone that discovered him on the Net, figured it out VERY quickly on their own. He had no followers that stuck with him more than a few months, till he started the movie idea.

      Once he went out and started meeting desperate people face to face, claiming he could and would help them, he had a following that could not hear any truth about him.

      Delete
    14. @Anon 2:24,

      IMHO, you need to Google "hindsight bias", ie, people have a tendency to view events as being more predictable than they really are. Windsor started out telling everyone the project was to film a few hundred people; soon after starting, it became thousands (project or feature creep). He also said it was non-political, but a few months in, he started his own party, etc.

      Delete
    15. @ 2:35: "No one informed me I was expected to do so, lol."

      If you wanted to help people then you could start by warning people of danger. Is that not what an activist does is help people?

      Delete
    16. Again, it seems to an observer without a dog in the fight that LA followers have a double standard in expecting to be warned. At what point do people become responsible for their own choices in leadership?

      Anons have made some great points in this regard:

      @ 2:35 "he had a following that could not hear any truth about him." And that is still true - any question or criticism is met with all out attack.

      @ 12:45 "Windsor is probably better than all of the established organizations, at marketing his cause." Bill studied marketing and applies his skills very well - when we first heard of him we had to take a second, deeper look before we saw the truth. But it wasn't a matter of "hindsight bias", it was a matter of comparing what Bill said to reality and facts.

      It doesn't take long to see the truth IF you don't have a dog in the fight, which point was also made at 12:45:

      "But Windsor's followers are motivated by self interest. The other reformers are looking at the bigger picture, which is of no interest to Windsor's followers."

      Delete
    17. People put great trust in Windsor and were recruited by other activists who they trusted. They were tricked into following him by people who should have warned them instead. There are wolves in sheep's clothing which is why people often warn others of danger, much as you have done yourself.

      Delete
    18. Allie said "I'm still not convinced he has large and dangerous backers."

      I don't think that is the case now. But it certainly does appear to have been the case in the beginning. Bill had several associates that cause concern. But to name one, Jon Roland is by far one of the most dangerous to our way of life, IMO.

      Delete
  16. GS,

    Congrats on your 200th blog entry--Well done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sluggo, I never really knew this day would come, and now that is has I don't know what to do with it

      Delete
    2. Whoa! Awesome! Congrats Ginger. Very cool indeed.

      Delete
    3. GS,

      Well, If blogging is anything like TV, you could go into syndication now. :-)

      Delete
    4. lol, maybe that's when its time to pull the plug

      Delete
    5. GS,

      I'm sure doing this blog is a burden, but I hope you keep it going because it's starting to have real impact. For instance, Billy's had his FB page taken down so now he says he's gonna sue FB. Right...Bambi v. Godzilla...can't wait!

      Delete
    6. no, Windsor won't win, its after that, I don't know

      Delete
    7. Brilliant. And funny, which has been lacking as of late. Thanks, Sluggo.

      Delete
    8. I'm curious: was there actually nudity on the LA Facebook group? (Or, which I suppose is also very possible, is Windsor lying about Facebook's explanation for deleting his page?)

      I never saw anything R-rated there; did anyone?

      Delete
    9. @Attorney, of course not.. If he's talking he's lying. He was deleted for having too many suspensions, and having too many complaints of harassment and threats of actual violence, as fb calls it. Apparently posting that you are going to someones house wearing a bullet proof vest, and naming that person is frowned upon. Fb seems fairly willing to cooperate and has little patience for bad behavior anymore. After I found the phone number to contact a real human and make a complaint, he didn't last long. I was able to get my name removed each time he posted it after that. Others were also calling to complain and cross referring the complaints to fb. I'm sure he will try and sue me for that to.....

      Delete
    10. So then, when Allie posted that IC3 told her they had taken down the FB, she was lying?

      Delete
    11. Allie never said IC3 told her they took his facebook down. Allie said IC3 told her they took his dot com, the Boushie dot com, and the Dombrowskie dot dot com, down temporarily to review the content.

      Also, Windsor showed a screen shot of the view from his Facebook page. It showed a message from Facebook saying the page had been "unpublished" due to nudity, sexual something-or-other, or porn. Either he is a master screen shot faker, or.....

      I have never seen nudity or porn or sexual anything on any of his pages. Seen pretty much everything else, but not those. I'd say a good guess is that someone, or several someone's, reported his page as Tiny says.

      Delete
    12. @ Attorney: I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that someone posted something objectionable on Bill's FB page. Then it was seen by FB or it was reported to FB before any of us noticed it. And, nobody playing in the FB war is telling the whole truth, so it's hard to tell what really happened.

      There are several people that continually harass Bill with posts and comments that are R & X rated, and some times threatening. Somebody posted a nasty message on the GRIP FB page using a profile set up in Bill's wife's name - it's still there. If they are willing to harass Bill in such ways, then have temper tantrums like two year olds when he retaliates the only way he knows how, by posting names and addresses, I wouldn't put it past these people to post nudity.

      Delete
    13. @Allie Gate: I stand corrected again. Thank you for clarifying.

      Delete
  17. @Anon 12:54: These are people that agreed to be part of an organization, if in fact one were ever created, lol. It never materialized. Windsor sent out email invitations and half of the people wrote back and said, "Sure, if you want to actually create an organization, I'd be interested in helping." But it never happened.

    No steering committee could have survived the first meeting, lol. As soon as they tried to create a foundation for the group, which would have required a system of checks and balances that would restrict Windsor, he would have vetoed it.

    The invitations were in response to the dozens of people that were telling him they had no intention of following a dictator and the huge drop in traffic to his website.

    So he announced a list of steering committee members. He also has a list of stalkers. How much truth is behind any of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, and I am sure that these people would have asked for their names to be removed if it was such a horrible lie, but in fact many were or are still affiliated with Windsor. Some were even in DC with him. So, what's your point really? They aren't operating under "GRIP" but "Lawless America". He listed them together, as part of the "Umbrella" under GRIP. So, all those people and their organizations would be connected. So, in essence, it is still functioning the way he said.

      "Basic Philosophy

      The basic philosophy behind GRIP is that GRIP will be neutral -- non-partisan. GRIP will serve as an umbrella organization for all the many groups, associations, websites, and bloggers who are battling various aspects of government corruption."

      Delete
    2. GRIP was still on the likes of the lawless page, so was WTP last time I looked on the page. I thought it rather interesting for some one who accused WTP of steeling a database and calling that group corrupt. Also interesting that Glenn Gimbalina and others who were/are heavily involved with WTP are still closely tied to Bill.

      Point being...those involved in Grip, especially those who were involved with WTP are Bill's roots, and the roots of Lawless...and those will be the roots of the organization that replaces lawless now that Bill is going down.

      Could this be a fork in the blog? LOL Lawless will continue onto the next scam....and that lil group of anti corruption nutcases will look for someone new to take Bill's place.

      *~*Redd*~*

      Delete
    3. ding ding ding for Redd...the point being, sadly, is that there are other Windsors out there ready to rise up from the same clowns that gave us Bill. This idiot movement will not die, only devolve

      Delete
    4. oh thank you for your reassurance on that if they continue so will troll groups like JIALK Its wonderful to know that all the loonies will still have hobbies

      Delete
  18. @Anon 1:16: LMAO, the idea of a single UMBRELLA for reform groups was MY idea. The idea was, that since Windsor seemed to at least have the skills to bring traffic to a web site, he would use his site as a gathering place for ALL of the reform groups.

    They would each be able to post information about their own groups hopefully establishing a network of people that reciprocated in supporting each others activities. Even more important, there would be one location that kept records of all reform activities, so that the same mistakes were not repeated over and over again.

    For example, the Citizen Grand Jury effort has played out, to no avail, many times by many different groups. The same is true of the idea to have government officials sign a "contract" with the people.

    Every time some newbie interested in reform appears, he picks up on these ideas, like Windsor did. He goes forth, as Windsor did, and repeats the exact same idea and gets the exact same results. Is that necessary, lol?

    The umbrella was supposed to organize the organizations, promoting cross communication so everyone stopped trying to reinvent the wheel.

    If you see ANYTHING functioning in that capacity, please point me to it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And when did you get involved with the groups?

      Delete
    2. @Anon 2:10: Around 2000.

      Delete
    3. I am not associated with any reform group and never have been. When I say "involved", it means I have followed their activities on the net.

      Delete
    4. How does following their activities online make you an insider on the group or give you experience to lead?

      Delete
    5. @Where did I say I was an insider on any group? AND WHERE did I say I had experience to lead or that I had any desire to do so?

      Delete
    6. Anon 2:28
      @ 1:34 you said "LMAO, the idea of a single UMBRELLA for reform groups was MY idea"

      and @ 2:44 you said "And I was THERE when GRIP was born." I probably could find more examples but you get the point.

      That would imply that you did more than watch from afar via the internet. If not, then the Umbrella was his idea, and not yours, since you weren't involved with him to present the idea, therefor he didn't take "your" idea. And why have such a strong opinion of him taking other groups (failed)ideas as his own, if you aren't involved in any groups to know that information? Just seems odd.

      You are double talking again.



      Delete
    7. @Anon 2:59: Just because you can't grasp what I'm saying does not mean I am double talking, lol.

      WHERE did I say all I did was watch from afar on the Internet? As long as you insist on misreading my posts and putting words in my mouth, you definitely will think you are hearing double talk.

      You will note above that I responded to your question about when I became "involved" by telling you it was around 2000. I didn't want you to get the idea that I have been part of any group, so I sought to clarify the extent of my "involvement".

      I stated that I have never been associated with any reform group. By "associated", I mean I have never COMMITTED to a group and I have never given any group my real name.

      I HAVE communicated with some groups, I HAVE followed some and considered becoming involved, but I never HAVE become a part of any group.

      I never said Windsor TOOK my idea. There you go again, reading into something that was not there.

      I GAVE gave him the idea via email. To be clear, I told him there were already dozens and dozens of activist groups and there was no need for yet another. What there WAS a need for, was an umbrella group, that could facilitate communications between the established groups, so they could help and learn from each other. He agreed.

      I might have elaborated on my original statements a bit more had I known you were conducting an inquest, lol. Or, I might have ignored the question to begin with.

      I don't think this level of activity amounts to me claiming I was an "insider". And there is certainly NO basis for your bizarre question about whether I have experience to lead. If you want to get into the definition of what "is" is, I'll have to opt out on that.

      Delete
    8. Why is it a bizarre question to ask what experience you have? You are making all kinds of judgments about other people and the only qualifications you have admitted to is that you troll other people's blogs. If you had experience you would name it. Why should take you seriously?

      Delete
    9. @Anon 3:29: You didn't ask me what experience I had. You asked out of the blue how my previous answer "gave me the experience to lead". But I never said it DID give me the experience to lead, therefore I found that question bizarre. I find it odd when someone asks me to justify a statement I never made....silly me.

      I was not aware that I was "admitting" qualifications for anything. I have no idea who you are, I have no need to prove (admit) anything to you, I never asked you to take me seriously or to take me at all. There should be a little wheel on your mouse or some other means by which you can scroll by my posts. Feel free to do so.

      Where do you get this idea that if I had experience I would name it? I think there is an awful lot happening in your mind that I have nothing to do with, lol.

      Delete
    10. So you have no qualifications or experience then? Only opinions and hatred.

      Delete
    11. What have you accomplished since 2000? What success have you had?

      Delete
    12. AnonymousJune 29, 2013 at 3:18 PM

      @Anon 2:59: Just because you can't grasp what I'm saying does not mean I am double talking, lol

      Just because you can't keep your stories straight doesn't mean I can't grasp what you are saying.

      WHERE did I say all I did was watch from afar on the Internet? As long as you insist on misreading my posts and putting words in my mouth, you definitely will think you are hearing double talk.

      Here- anonymous June 29, 2013 at 2:17 PM I am not associated with any reform group and never have been. When I say "involved", it means I have followed their activities on the net.

      You will note above that I responded to your question about when I became "involved" by telling you it was around 2000. I didn't want you to get the idea that I have been part of any group, so I sought to clarify the extent of my "involvement".

      That's nice, but I didn't ask you that question, but again, revert to your comment @ 2:17 above, and your comment @ 1:34 you said "LMAO, the idea of a single UMBRELLA for reform groups was MY idea" and @ 2:44 you said "And I was THERE when GRIP was born."

      I stated that I have never been associated with any reform group. By "associated", I mean I have never COMMITTED to a group and I have never given any group my real name.

      Ya, I already addressed this, that if you emailed Bill about the GRIP Umbrella idea and you were there at the beginning, you were part of a group, no matter how short lived.

      I HAVE communicated with some groups, I HAVE followed some and considered becoming involved, but I never HAVE become a part of any group. ^^^ same thing applies

      I never said Windsor TOOK my idea. There you go again, reading into something that was not there.

      I GAVE gave him the idea via email. To be clear, I told him there were already dozens and dozens of activist groups and there was no need for yet another. What there WAS a need for, was an umbrella group, that could facilitate communications between the established groups, so they could help and learn from each other. He agreed.

      I might have elaborated on my original statements a bit more had I known you were conducting an inquest, lol. Or, I might have ignored the question to begin with.

      I didn't ask you the question, you took it upon yourself to boast that GRIP was your idea. So, he didn't "take" your idea, (I see you like semantic games like Bill) you gave it to him, but you were implying that you were the brain child so to speak of it, and your defensive comment thereafter seemed to be a touch bitter that you didn't get any credit. If that wasn't the case, I don't see why you even mentioned it was your idea to begin with.

      I don't think this level of activity amounts to me claiming I was an "insider". And there is certainly NO basis for your bizarre question about whether I have experience to lead. If you want to get into the definition of what "is" is, I'll have to opt out on that.

      Again, reiterating your statement that you were there in the beginning of GRIP, you were taking part of a group (via email or in person, stop playing semantic games) you are bragging that you were an insider. Now back peddling that stance because you didn't like where it was going, is no reason to get all defensive. You sound jealous, and it appears I am not the only one to make that connection.

      Delete
    13. @Anon 3:18: It seems you want a very detailed accounting of my activities. It also seems that you are reading an awful lot into everything I say.

      @Anon 4:25: “Ya, I already addressed this, that if you emailed Bill about the GRIP Umbrella idea and you were there at the beginning, you were part of a group, no matter how short lived.”

      Well you weren't there and I was, but I suppose you could be more qualified to characterize my involvement than I am. From now on, since you have deemed it so, when I speak of my own past I will say I was part of a group.

      “... you took it upon yourself to boast that GRIP was your idea. ...you were implying that you were the brain child so to speak of it, and your defensive comment thereafter seemed to be a touch bitter that you didn't get any credit. If that wasn't the case, I don't see why you even mentioned it was your idea to begin with.”

      Try to follow along. The QUESTION posed here is whether there was ever actually an organization called GRIP. Anon 1:16 argued that there was and cited the umbrella philosophy. But Anon 1:16’s explanation of the steering committee/umbrella/affiliations seemed very confused to me. I didn't BOAST (don’t project your issues onto me) about having an idea that was never implemented. I merely acknowledged it was my idea so you would understand how I knew what the organization was supposed to be. I explained the idea, so that Anon 1:16 would realize that in fact, no umbrella was ever created. See how that information related to the actual question of whether GRIP ever materialized?

      "Again, reiterating your statement that you were there in the beginning of GRIP, you were taking part of a group (via email or in person, stop playing semantic games) you are bragging that you were an insider. Now back peddling that stance because you didn't like where it was going, is no reason to get all defensive. You sound jealous, and it appears I am not the only one to make that connection."

      Now you are projecting that I was bragging about being an insider. I was briefly an insider, but it is certainly nothing anyone would brag about. I don't know where you see defensiveness here, I certainly don't feel the least bit defensive. You said I am jealous but you didn't say what I was jealous of? You’ve got me all figured out, I can’t fool you, lmao. Oh wait, I think you forgot to throw in that I was/am in love with Windsor!

      I don't know who you are but you seem to think much more highly of LA than I do. To me, it never was and never will be anything of value. I would describe it as a colossal failure from the very beginning and in every respect. Only someone with a high opinion of LA could possibly think another person would BRAG about her past association with it. Anon 4:25 are you Windsor or one of the four people that still believe in him?

      Btw, what does any of this have to do with whether there was ever actually a group or organization known as GRIP? smh You seem quite gifted when it comes to reading between the lines, lol, but maybe you could try reading the lines themselves sometime?

      Delete
    14. "I was briefly an insider"

      Wow, that confession took all night.

      Delete
    15. IKR LNM. After all her double talk that she wasn't. She's not worth any more time or energy. She made several contradictory comments, all very telling. And she will no doubt run back to her party of one blog and claim victory over the GENII.

      Ah, but Susan Harbison, aka Anon, thanks for playin'.

      Delete
    16. @LKM and Anon 11:43: Bahahahaha, LMAO!

      Neither of you saw where I agreed that Anon 4:25's characterization of my participation must be better than my own? Too busy hallucinating about what was between the lines of actual text I guess.

      I have admitted that Anon 4:25 may be clairvoyant. I can't argue with someone that gifted. I have acquiesced to her superior understanding of what I was doing at LA and for that matter, whether it was possible to be inside something that never existed. Right before stating I was an insider I wrote:

      "Well you weren't there and I was, but I suppose you could be more qualified to characterize my involvement than I am. From now on, since you have deemed it so, when I speak of my own past I will say I was part of a group."

      f people want to imagine there was a group when there was not, and I was part of that fictional group, then it follows that I was on the inside doesn't it? I'm trying to play along with your fantasy world, but I don't really know how it works. I googled "levels of participation in non-existent groups" but nothing came up. What are the rules?

      Don't let me go around misstating my position in the fictional group as it seems to be of great importance to some people. Can you be part of a non-existent group without being an insider? That would make me an outsider member of the non-existent group right? If I was on the outside, I wonder who was on the inside other than Willy.

      Oh wait, if there is only one person in a group, it isn't a group is it? Someone besides Willy must have been in there but if so, he was a secretive devil! I strive for accuracy so please help me with your confusing game. I'm not smart enough to figure it out on my own.

      Delete
    17. The phenomenon known to some as clairvoyance has a mathematical and scientific basis called pattern recognition. The human ability for this trait has been demonstrated on a world wide scale, and is correlated with healthy heart, mind and immune states. But then again, must people don't look for supernatural explanations when they've been caught in a lie.

      Delete
    18. @LNM: Like I said, I recognize that someone out there can read my mind! I accept it and will gladly play along. Your post has not shed any light on the rules of the fictional group game. Btw, the existence of that group, IS the subject of the debate here.

      Are you the clairvoyant? You seem defensive about it. Or maybe you are bitter and jealous of whoever it was that did make the clairvoyant statements? Are you in love with a clairvoyant? Do tell!

      Delete
  19. @1:29: "Point being...those involved in Grip, especially those who were involved with WTP are Bill's roots, and the roots of Lawless..."

    On the contrary. Windsor's roots are his MoM case. He appeared on the Net to address that problem.

    He seemed to think he was the first person to notice there were problems in the judicial system. He made no effort to find out if there was already an organized group working for reform that he might join. I really think he believed he was the first!

    As time went on, he began searching the net to find the other groups. He collected the links and put them on his site. He invited the leaders of those groups to join HIM.

    His knowledge of law and the problems in the judicial system was limited to his own tiny experience. It was exactly like watching a person struggling to invent a wheel, having no idea it had already been done and being too stupid to consider that possibility.

    This man actually paid hundreds of dollars to have a truck drive a sign around DC, believing it would draw the attention of the press. THAT is how naive he was.

    He did eventually pick up on some of the ideas others were promoting, like the grand jury and the contracts. But he never looked into those ideas to find out if they had been done, he just heard the ideas and jumped in with both feet, falling flat on his face as others could have told him he would do.

    The fact that he LINKED to some other groups, does not mean he listened to what any of the experienced people in those groups tried to tell him or that he even asked any of them for advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "On the contrary. Windsor's roots are his MoM case. He appeared on the Net to address that problem.

      He seemed to think he was the first person to notice there were problems in the judicial system. He made no effort to find out if there was already an organized group working for reform that he might join. I really think he believed he was the first!"

      And this little story somehow puts him in contrasts with all the other idiots in this movement? Every single one of them is driven to this by some personal beef with either LE or the judicial system. Just like you said he tried to reinvent the wheel...well show me the current wheel. Where is the smart and successful person in this group? Of course all the old ideas failed, all the new ones will as well. That is what losers do, they fail, no matter if its their first and 50th time to try it.

      Delete
    2. @GS: The "wheel", is any successful movement in history. Windsor didn't have the sense to research and learn from other movements or activist leaders. He had/has no concept of what it takes to lead activist, therefore he makes every mistake that one can possibly make.

      I guess if you think all activists are losers, you are not aware of prior successes of activists in this country either!

      Delete
    3. "the wheel" in this particular situation has not been invented, what you want him to go sit on the back of a bus or something? So what if Bill just made it up as he went, that doesn't separate him at all from all of these other "corruption" fighters, particularly the ones mentioned in this article.

      99% of activist are wasting their time, and certainly all the ones we have come in contact with in this LA/Me the people movement are doing just that....in fact they are setting back the "cause"

      Delete
    4. So then you do not believe there is a process to get legislation passed? Or is it that the only process you know about involves a bus?

      Who said Windsor is different than "all" of the other activists? My point is that there are ways to approach any problem. There are steps you take. Windsor didn't take those steps. He could have learned a lot about what NOT to do from some of the people he was talking to. But he didn't even learn THAT much from them.

      Delete
    5. of course its a process, and nothing that any of these people are doing is a part of the actual process, that's my point.

      "My point is that there are ways to approach any problem. There are steps you take."

      talk about two meaningless cliché sentences. The point is you don't have one.

      Delete
    6. YOU said: "the wheel" in this particular situation has not been invented.

      It certainly has. Now you are saying, "of course it's a process". Clearly you DO recognize a wheel for reform has been invented.

      Delete
    7. no, for the specific "cause" which you are talking about there is no wheel. So who is to say bill's wheel is any more dumber than your wheel. Both are failures

      Delete
    8. Ok GS, that post is just plain hilarious.

      Delete
  20. @GS: "'the wheel' in this particular situation has not been invented".

    So you don't think there are tried and true ways to work towards getting legislation passed? Ok then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah its called lobbying, not activism. Activists are the people walking up and down the street with signs and holding up traffic, that we all laugh at on the evening news. Lobbyist are the ones that quietly work with legislators to pass and reform legislation

      Delete
    2. Ginger, that is why that the activists never get a change. they protest and make Change.org pettitions all day complaining on facebook pages waiting for some Messiah such as BW to come around and do it all for them. This is because those activists don't know how to have a normal conversation with any realistic dialogue with legislators. All they do is complain about their case, come up with no ideas or solutions and finally they throw an online tantrum when they are not getting their way.

      Delete
    3. UH, no, it is not called lobbying. Lobbyists are people that WORK for special interest groups, which can be formed by activists.

      So you would have laughed at the civil rights activists, the Vietnam war activists, the women's movement activists? Our government didn't find them too amusing did it?

      Delete
    4. that's why I said 99% and not 100%. Yes, very rarely, and we all read about it in middle school history, some activists help bring about actual change through legislation. You and all of these Me
      The People types are most certainly part of the 99% of my statement...not the 1%

      Delete
    5. ohhh so lobbyists work for special interest groups mainly because they pay them. Look, you found the holy grail. Instead of riding around in a giant bumper sticker on wheels, maybe you should form a PAC, raise money for that and pay a professional to help craft it in to legislation that could be used?

      Delete
    6. lol @ giant bumper sticker on wheels.

      Delete
    7. giant bumper sticker on wheels

      Wait a dang minute, that's George McDermott's raison d'etre.

      Delete
    8. @GS: "maybe you should form a PAC, raise money for that and pay a professional to help craft it in to legislation that could be used?"

      So you DID make it to eighth grade. You had me fooled!

      Delete
  21. When did this blog become a bunch of people trying to catch each other in bad positions and win arguments? If somebody came here today, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the cops and the robbers.

    Someone tell a damn joke or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Three vexatious litigants walk into a bar...

      Delete
    2. One had a stack of papers, one a lap top, and one a parrot on his shoulder holding a camera....

      Delete
    3. ...the one with laptop says to the others, "The service around here is terrible." The one with the parrot says, "If you think this is bad, you should try Mississippi."

      Delete
    4. Bwahaha!

      And the one with the stack of papers says, "You guys ain't seen nothin', the service is so bad in Missouri they can't GET served."......

      And the parrot.....

      Delete
    5. said, that's nothing. "A cousin of mine worked on a movie with Betty Davis. He wound up getting served...on a bed of lettuce!"

      Delete
    6. LOL! And the parrots' vexatious litigant took screen shots of the whole thing for future expeditions, while the first two vexatious litigants and the parrot ordered a round.

      Delete
  22. What's the difference between a vexatious litigant and one legged prostitute?

    ReplyDelete
  23. At least the prostitute has a leg to stand on and has a better chance at getting paid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people a one legged prostitute wouldn't even try to screw.

      Delete
    2. A better website and an active FB page.

      Delete
    3. One smells bad, likely has a substance abuse problem and is homeless.

      The other has only has one leg.

      Delete
    4. Pure gold, I tell ya. Pure gold!

      Delete
    5. yawning.........June 29, 2013 at 7:59 PM

      Anon 7:36 yup...sick. Pure sickness.

      **Minds are a terrible thing to waste**

      Delete
    6. Wow...did you steal that from the UNCF or is it straight out of your micro-cephalic, decerebrate lemur head?

      Delete
  24. Ahem. That's Mr. Micro-cephalic, decerebrate lemur head to you, pal.

    And there's no hyphen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, NO, you give head, and BTW there's not NINE dots in an ellipses, BITCH.

      Delete
    2. Sorry,11:33. No professionals on open mic night.

      Delete
    3. Anon 11:33. Don Rickles, is that you?

      Delete
    4. LOL! Well played, 11:38.

      Delete
    5. Who's yawning now?

      Delete
  25. Oh, oh. Anon 11:33 figured out the NetNanny pass code.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Must be a full moon or something. All the cray cray are out tonight, drunk posting and thinking they're funny. ZZZzzzZZZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'd much rather read your editorial comments.

      Delete
    2. I bet, glad you agree. They are much better than the juvenile humor going on.

      Delete
    3. Yet you keep reading and commenting. You must be getting SOMETHING out of it.

      Delete
  27. NBTDT you need to go read the ATW website. very interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sean. That is very interesting. Much better than what's going on up there ^^^. I'm out on the ellipses, sick jokes and name calling...

      Delete
    2. Aah...looks like we just lost one of the parents from the original "Footloose" movie.

      Delete
  28. Thought you weren't coming here unless your name was mentioned so p*ss off anon.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What ATW website, Sean?

    Only if it's relevant to LA, BW, et al, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. So when was it decided Anon's would censor our reading material? Shocking as it may seem, some of us are interested in something other than LA, BW, et al. And if you don't know which ATW site, you are not relevant.

      But all that aside, it just so happens Sean's reading suggestion is relevant to this blog.

      Delete
  30. Very curious to read the six page affidavit recently filed by our very own vexatious litigant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How so? Can you give some highlights?

      Delete
    2. How am I curious? Because I haven't read it yet and it pertains to his lawsuit against me. I see he filed a six page affidavit and I'm curious to read what he has to say. The other junk he filed, I already know what he will say so I'm not so curious. Another day or so and the mail man will bring me the affidavit I would think.

      Delete
    3. Oh, sorry, I thought you already read it. Need more coffee...I read that wrong.

      Delete
    4. LOL. It's Sunday, that's allowable. I think Monday-ish, I will have the pleasure of reading it.

      Delete
    5. Well, that explains what he's been doing for the past handful of days: on Friday he filed five different documents, and he's scheduled a hearing on some of them for July 16. Me, I'm curious to see what he's saying on any and all of them.

      The five filings:
      * The affidavit Ms. Overstreet mentioned (supporting his motion and responses, no doubt)
      * Motion to strike Ms. Overstreet's "pleadings and filings"
      * Response to Ms. Overstreet's motion to strike
      * Response to Ms. Overstreet's motion to dismiss
      * Notice of hearing on July 16 on Windsor's motion to strike and his motion for an extension of his time to respond.

      Like pretty much all of the filings in this case, all of the above is fairly mysterious, because the Missouri court system doesn't post PDF copies of most (any?) filings. All we members of the public get is titles of filings.

      Delete
    6. He still hasn't served me and I'm leaving to spend 2 weeks in sunny California stress free visiting my family. :-) tomorrow morning. Hey dumb dumb, maybe you can catch me at Disneyland. I'll be the one laughing really, really hard. At you. See ya BOOBY. Good luck in court.

      Delete
  31. Speaking of education what's up with this?

    http://www.afro.com/hosted/09022010/md-stwd-ushouse-4dist-mcdermott_george.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Pie Man Zombie HunterJune 30, 2013 at 1:04 PM

    The ATW blog is written to support of Bill Windsor and PMA. It supports attacking people that Sean F and NBTD do not like. It also supports Dawn H and Sarah T, whom are Facebook friends with Sean F, which help a pedophile frame the mother of naked pictures of her child to win custody. Sean F is Misogyny and feels that if a woman does not like being treated like a doormat then NBTD and Sean F, will call them a Man Hater.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, if I may speak for myself, the part I found interesting was the claim that the "Joey's" supported Deanna Kloostra (sp?). We've never supported any group, cause or any member of a cause.

      Otherwise, just as your comments are, the piece appeared to be nothing more than a personal attack made in an attempt to pick a fight.

      Delete
    2. Nbtdt where was deanna's name mentioned in this above comment? Yep like I thought - nowhere. Out have made your opinion well known here on this big how you feel about women who are victims of DV. You are not very nice about those opinions. I am with AMPP, and while I feel that women need to leave at the first sign of abuse, I I'll not crucify any victim for how long it takes her to leave, nor will I crucify her for what happens that finally opens her eyes and motivates her to leave. To do any less than that is to have no compassion or empathy. And that is what is wrong with society today. Most (not all but MOST) people today have no compassion for victims.

      Delete
    3. You have made your opinion - not out have made your opinion.

      Delete
    4. PMZH comment was in reference to the article Sean suggested that I read. My reference was to that article, in which the name was mentioned.

      Delete
    5. I'd like to add, I have no idea who the other people are that PMZH mentioned and I had to look up Deanna to figure out where I'd seen her name before.

      I was trying to point out that I have no interest in this topic or this war and the reference made to this blog is incorrect.

      Delete
    6. So when was it decided regulars would sensor our reading material.......and with that, y'all have a great rest of your lives.

      Delete
    7. Excuse me? How did I censor material? I stated that I wasn't interested in a certain topic. It's not like I said, you can only talk about or post stuff relevant to LA, BW, et al.

      I'm really going to discuss any topic with people that make stuff up and make personal attacks. But, nobody is stopping you, PMZH and Anon from discussing it and me all you want.


      Delete
    8. Nbtdt, I pointed out to you that ATW and Janice/pma do very much tie into gs blog. Janice/pma/ATW are defending bill and have supported and continue to support him. I have given several people documentation of my story in the form of mainstream media articles. So not something I could twist or change to suit myself. It lays a portion of my story out wide open. I was honest with these people whom I told before I shared the msm articles. Everything I stated was pretty much revealed in those articles just like I said.

      But this is why Janice/pma/ATW do have all to do with the subject matter at hand. They blindly follow all that bill Windsor says, they give him air time at their moderated blogs and websites and they twist statements much like BW does in order to make themselves appear superior. I know because they have done it to me. I am for any group that wants to take on any issue. But when you try to destroy another group that as a group has not harmed anyone (like bill) or you attack individual'members of that group, then i have issue with you and your group. Pma/Janice/bill/la/ATW have no idea what I do with AMPP, nor what actions I take alone. With AMPP, I support moms. There are tons of father groups, tons of shared parenting groups, tons of grandparent groups, but very few dealing with moms and formerly abused moms. NOW deals with many many issues and does not concentrate on family court/custody issues. AMPP does. Now alone as myself I will help anyone who comes to me and presents a valid backed up with documents and facts case, no matter gender/relation to child. I guide them to the place that will best help them whether as a mom it is AMPP, or legal aid, or a DV shelter, or dcf or whatever, I help people. I try to have compassion. And it really angers me that those on here are so hell bent on seeing bill go down (and rightfully so I may add) but yet see nothing wrong with atw/pma/janice's actions simply because they are going after abused mother activists.

      Delete
  34. PMA also attacked me through this ATW blog earlier on and allowed bill to post that I am lying. My child met him in Daytona when he filmed one gentleman who used to work for a fire department in NY who had a bad divorce, he filmed that mom from Michigan who Janice, pma, and ATW said the joeys attacked on here, and that day he also filmed Linda Marie sacks as well. Bill stated on ATW blog that he has never met my child. She did not film with him, I would not allow it because she is a child but she did very much meet him. There was also another mom with custody issues there (two in fact) and Linda, the Michigan/Florida mom, the other two moms, a brevard county mom who had already filmed previously and who is still with him last I knew, and the gentleman who filmed all met my daughter as well. I realize this is only a small lie but why would bill lie about that. He could very easily follow the fathers rights tactics and say he did meet her but that I have her brainwashed. Wouldn't that have been easier and not been a direct lie (saying he met her but I have screwed her head up, versus saying he never met her when so many people could validate my story)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was always taught as a child to not lie and that is one thing I refuse to do. I will not lie. Several on here have been made aware of my etire sordid past (yappy, brannon, petunia s, Sean b, mist, almost all of the AMPP moms I speak to, ninja, Lorraine, ehh, and even gs I believe when I had the meltdown on June 12 or 13. This was when i spilled my guts to these people about y past. I pull no punches about it, I will state it and put it out there. I even put out about one incident from my past that is no longer available for public reading due to judicial order. I was also taught if you will lie about one thing why should you be believed about other things? This is one reason why with all the cps contact I have had over the last eight plus years cps tries to help me. Because I do not lie. Bill, pma, and Janice lie by omission.

      Delete
    2. @Anon 1:54 and anyone else who was filmed by Windsor,

      I have a simple question for you:

      I take it you responding to Windsor's advertisement
      where the exact wording was: Be in the movie.

      Did this lead you to believe you would actually be in a movie/documentary?

      Do you think you would have considered not showing up to get filmed if Windsor's ad was "Get filmed, you may be chosen to be in a movie"?

      Make sense? Any comments would be appreciated.

      Delete
    3. I would have. I wasn't interested in any movie and always thought he wouldn't get further than a b roll DVD type thing. My interest was in supplementing the work I was starting to get into. The lobbying Congress to yank full immunity back to partial immunity if court shows evidence of wrongdoing. Family court stuff. CPS stuff.

      Delete
    4. To clarify, I meant I would have showed up anyway.

      Delete
    5. My interest was never a movie, and anyone who says otherwise has no idea how I have worked my butt off to get where I am now. Obsessions with fame, glory and fortune have never been anything that mattered to me. I am not rich but everything I have, I worked for. My interest was in making sure no other person be hurt in the way that I was hurt. As for Bill's false advertising, no I didn't answer any ad. I was led to him by other fake family rights activists who have no more training or accomplishments than I do. I trusted people when I should have just trusted myself. At least I know, that what I do is legal and will not sponsor frivolous lawsuits against innocent people by a psychopath and his enablers.

      Delete
    6. However, Bill did much to promise a movie. He also encouraged people to volunteer saying that they would have a greater chance to be in the movie. He also sold tshirts with that logo. He also did everything possible to encourage infighting and anxiety over having one person's story told over another. Rather than bring people together, he encouraged hatred and fear. He also encouraged people to be dependent on him or those like him who had no true answers, while wasting their time in a fake activist group that would never do any real good for anyone.

      Delete
    7. I filmed because others filmed. I did not care whether there was a movie or not. I was more interested in finding someone anyone who would spend the time to look into what I have alleged about the local law enforcement and make things right. Did I think bill would do that? No but I knew the videos were going on YouTube and i saw bill as someone who had contacts and who was - how shall I put this? - charming to the point of getting people to pay attention (at least initially) and look at what was out there. Did I honestly think there was going to be a movie? No.

      Delete
    8. I never really cared about the movie, in fact, I never filmed for it because I was worried that what happened to Maria and Allie after they were filmed might happen to me. That's why I left the cause.....

      Delete
  35. I am Anon 3:09 and I find reading the self destructive behavior of BW fascinating, even if only in the clinical aspect. Ergo, my request to Sean to share a website that he referenced in an earlier post.

    NBTDT jumps in with the usual craziness and a new slew of posts ensue.

    People read this blog for reasons that may not completely align with NBTDT's interests, and that's probably a good thing.

    Perhaps NBTDT should find something better to do.

    ReplyDelete

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