Friday, June 7, 2013

Windsor AMPP's Up His Wild Goose Chase


Bill has been quiet on his vacation.  Thats because he is busy writing and preparing for his civil case in Missouri.  He posted that he plans to add all the known members of the AMPP as his John Does, currently he claims that number to be 33.  He claims his residence is changing to South Dakota, aka that's where I will receive my nomad mail.

This is really no surprise actually, we are back now full circle as Bill wants to, admittedly, devote the rest of his short life to terrorising women who disagree with him.  As we speculated all along, he is trying to use the lawsuit in Missouri against Allie as the catalyst to his all out war against his naysayers.  He found a federal judge foolish enough to grant him the right to get vexatious in Missouri so he is going to milk this frivolous lawsuit for all its worth.  But there is one big problem for Bill.....

Allie has representation, outstanding representation at that.  She will quickly be off the hook, and therefore, I believe, get everyone else off the hook as well.  Once Allie and Brenda are out of the picture, there is really not good argument for jurisdiction in this particular court for them to go wild goose chasing down the AMPPs literally all over the Country.  Yes, technically he could do it, but I think this Judge will be done with it once it turns into a John Doe hunt.

Bill doesn't enter these cases to win.  I'm not sure there is any documented proof of him winning anything in his overly vexatious career in court.  But what Bill can do is tie up both the court and the defendant with his astounding level of frivolous and voluminous filings.  Much like his entire life is a waste, he has a way of brining others down in to the muck that he resides in (and its not somewhere in South Dakota).  But, this will fail as I believe that his true motives will be revealed once Allie is able to dismiss herself from the case.

180 comments:

  1. How DID we get here. This is incredible. We went from the kindly old man eating pie across America to the man who wanted to save America from corruption to the man who is traveling across America harassing people. Will the real Bill Windsor stand up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, it appears by his history, that kindly old man eating pies across America, lied to the people giving him those pies when he mislead them (or flat out lied) about writing a book and including them all in it. (Not some blog page or .com article, that isn't a "book".)

      Just like the man who wanted to save America from corruption was all a guise it seems. He used people's weakness, and preyed on their vulnerabilities to get donations, and exploit their pain. They just wanted to be heard, now their part of his herd.

      The real Bill Windsor has been standing up, but no one has been paying attention to his past, his history, and his well documented antics.

      It is sad that this Judge granted him permission to continue his history of being a vexatious litigant, something that he is truly taking advantage of.

      Delete
    2. Impossible to say where a dishonest man's life went off course, but that history of litigation stretching back to the 80's show that the current defendants had little to no contribution to this man's downfall.

      Delete
  2. Bill posted this little tid bit on his LA FB page.
    "Some unfortunate things have happened to some of our Lawless America friends. Folks arrested, put into mental facilities for psych evaluations, and more."

    Now how is he helping these people with their cases again? Oh ya, that's right, he can't, he won't and he doesn't care.

    Oh how stupid Schied and Trish must feel right now. He played them just like he's playing everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been almost a year since David made the below post. What's been accomplished? Nothing. Are you still excited David?

      "David Schied commented on a link.
      July 20, 2012.

      Anticipation for Bill's arrival is growing wildly here in Michigan. Word is out that a venue is now open for getting so many other stories out that the mainstream media refuses to cover. Thank you Bill Windsor. Everyone knows that the government system is completely broken. The problem is that - except for the very few who are in the trenches of activism like Mr. Windsor - the "people" of this country are so bad off that they actually don't believe that they can reign back in the public officials that are so far out of control. Bill's movie will demonstrate that one man (or woman) CAN make a difference. I'm stepping up....how about any of you?"

      Delete
    2. Sad. I said very similar things a year ago. I wanted so badly to change the system that hurt me via bias and lies. I really fell for LA and jumped in with both feet. Ha....then several months later had to swim out, dragging myself up out of his swamp with him grabbing at my feet. Thank God I know how to swim. And kick.

      Delete
  3. Just documenting the obsertities of his posts today. In one he says;
    "I was on pins and needles for the 20-minute drive from one end of the Strip to the other, but the magic suction cup held."

    In another post he says;
    "I am still sick. I thought I was going to be okay Wednesday night. But I charged off today to film, and i was so dizzy that I could barely stand upright.......but i can't drive in the condition I am in right now."

    Both posted within minutes of each other. Oh how he loves attention, making stupid posts that contradict each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob XXXXX I remember during 1jobs we lost you for weeks. Take care. I'm sure looking at that building in your mind is normal.

      Bob is noting the constant sicknesses too. Also, is Bob saying the twisted, crooked building looks normal to Bill, because Bill is twisted and crooked? LOL

      Delete
  4. I would be careful about visiting bill's tiny dot com. It is malicious - keeps shutting down my browser with warnings.
    On another note unless he wants to pay 1300 for one of my names, he can't do anything like this to me. The other name is already in use.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have friends and family in South Dakota, in Sturgis, Rapid City, Chamberlain and Sioux Falls. Groupwatcher467

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please explain to a newcomer - is this blog pro or con the person named Joey Dauben?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog originally chronicled rantings of Joey in a decidedly negative light.

      Delete
    2. That's good. From what I've read, JD makes BW look like Mother Theresa.

      Delete
    3. Anon@859... BW is a flaming lunatic. JD as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong joeys), did not register domain names with the intent of hurting people. BW is.

      Delete
    4. ehhhhh, actually he did, in fact he started doing that like in 2007

      Delete
    5. One big difference I will say in Joey from Bill is that Joey never intentionally scammed anyone. Joey really believed in what he was doing. Bill has been defrauding people his entire life, its the only thing he knows.

      Delete
    6. yeah Joey was no doubt on the same pathway, the only difference I would say is Joey still had a conscience, while Bill clearly does not

      Delete
    7. Yes, and I think JD understands that he put himself where he is today. Sometimes lessons learned come with a terribly painful price.

      Delete
    8. I thought JD went to prison on some kind of sex with a minor charge. Same guy?

      Delete
    9. Yes Anon 11:15, Joey Dauben raped a young teen. There is no complication to that issue 11:20.

      Joey was naive thinking he could trust some who were false accusers and wrongly attacked innocent people with a vengeance. He had a dark side to him but I'll never believe he was without a conscience.

      Windsor on the other hand spent his entire life scamming and hurting others in a very calculated manner for many motives including to line his pockets. He has NO conscience, he's a monster and he even hurt Joey and Joey's case deeply by giving that naive man false hope.

      Delete
    10. No, he raped a child, the child testified, the child was very credible, the jury believed the child and Joey is convicted and serving 30 years. There is no question what happened.

      Regarding the complications to the other case? That too is cut and dried. The wife lied about her ex being a child molester and Joey took her word as gospel like he did with some other blatant false accusers. Joey had no right to report what he did about the man in Ellis County as some pedophile.

      He was reckless and his actions were criminal both in the rape of a child and in Ellis County case. Justice, however harsh it's been for Joey, has been served. He could have taken a plea deal and that's his own stupidity not to have done so after knowing the Texas Rangers had almost 100% conviction rate. He has no one but himself to blame for both of his convictions.

      Delete
    11. Inpropriety? It's called raping an innocent child.

      Delete
    12. There is great evidence many rape victims take years to come forth because of deep shame. This child was only 14 and a virgin. Joey raped him. Your excuses anon 12:52 are pathetic and demonstrative of a sick warped mind who has zero experience with child rape victims.

      No man drinking or not would rape a virginal 14 yr old child. THE FULL responsibility belongs on Joey Dauben, no one else, not even the alcohol.

      Delete
    13. Joey registered 4 domains under peoples names that I know of. One was Boyce Whatley. Former mayor of Midlothian Texas. Several others were also elected officials. Others include croockedcopjay.com gypseycopjay.com to attack a former police officer JAH. That was a legnthy chronicle for Joey that lead to another (Somewhat) arrest.

      Delete
    14. Pie Man Zombie HunterJune 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM

      BUT JD got a plead deal for no jail time, and being the jerk he is threw it back at the judge...

      JD is were he is by his actions and so let stop blaming the victim

      Delete
    15. He said he couldn't plead guilty for something he didn't do.

      Delete
    16. Pie Man Zombie HunterJune 8, 2013 at 2:11 AM

      He had sex with a 14 year old....even if the child say yes and was gay... it is still rape, and JD knew he was young and drinking, just saying JD thinks is was biggest then life and could get off.....

      Prisons are full of men that are still trying to conned their family and friends that they are victims of the systems. JD egos or the mask he wears pretending to be some great hero for the people, would not let him take the plead because he would be put on the sex register. How can he puffed himself as a hero and also be on the sex register. So he throws the dice, hoping to win the case and lost.

      Delete
    17. Pie Man Zombie HunterJune 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM

      My ex try to kill my son when he was 6 weeks old, he confessed and is in Jail but you should hear the crazy things that he tells his family and friends. I had been yelled at going to court house for not supporting him, and how he is a victim because he could not help himself. He has told so many stories about what happen and his family believe them all.

      If you hear them talking about what happen they said it my fault because I held and spoil my son, please remember my son was six weeks old. I just wish people would stop and think about what they said to protect men who abuse children.

      Delete
    18. Anon 1:47 remember that JD was a charming individual. So much so in fact that in my time around him I never questioned anything he said or did. Now I wished I had! Joey had many fooled. He couldn't plea out because he knew he had myself and another editor in the wings waiting to report that he took it and why. Joey fears most the weapon he wielded. He fears the pen because to him it cuts deeper than any sword.
      His testimony alone convinced the Jury. It was more damning that the victims testimony. And gave more credibility to the victim than Joey ever realized.

      Delete
    19. REALLY??? We are re-hashing the Joey's RAPE of a kid AGAIN? The behavior of the mother and father of the kid are relevant to this matter only to the extent that they created a perfect victim/target and opportunity for a sexual predator.

      As regards the Ellis County conviction, Joey's sentence was probated. And as I recall, the DA requested probation. How was that too harsh? With respect to any axe grinding, again as I recall the majority of Joey's hit pieces were on Ellis County government & LE.

      The rape occurred and was investigated in Navarro County. And the trial was delayed because there weren't enough potential jurors responding to summons. So, when the trial was re-set any reasonable person would believe that Navarro County found 12 people to seat on the jury that also had an axe to grind because of Joey's criticism of Ellis County LE? Sure, OK.

      And, Curtis is right - I wasn't in the court room. But, based on eye witness accounts, it does appear that Joey convicted himself. In both cases.

      Delete
    20. David Webb is our anonymous poster. He's sick to blame the family, alcohol or anything but Joey Dauben for the rape of a child. Go rot in hell Webb.

      Delete
    21. @NBTDT: I've always wondered why the victim was interviewed by child advocacy people in Ellis County rather than in Navarro County where the prosecution occurred? JD was widely hated by public officials in Ellis County and every county surrounding it.

      Delete
    22. Well, that might be a good procedural question. I certainly don't believe it has anything to do with any axe grinding. Does Navarro County have a facility and/or resources like the Gingerbread House? Was the interview presented as evidence during the trial? And how much influence did the interview have in the prosecution's case? Out of how many pieces of evidence against Joey and how many witnesses? Based on reports I've read, including from our friend David Webb, it appears that the boy, testimony from other witnesses and Joey's own words helped the prosecution win the convictions.

      An adult having sex with a child is illegal and immoral, regardless of any circumstance. PERIOD. Why are we re-hashing this?

      Delete
    23. Response to NBTDT:Yes, Navarro County does appear to have the facility and/or resources that the Gingerbread House has: http://kidadvocates.org/cac.html
      A Gingerbread House interviewer did testify in the trial along with the victim, the victim's mother, the Texas Ranger, a psychologist and the victim's brother. As she testified about what the victim told her about the sexual activity, it obviously was key testimony.

      Delete
    24. The Gingerbread house has nothing to do with the trial. You coughing up Joey's moronic conspiracy crap is bullshit. Joey raped a child. Stop with this bullshit already, it's sickening.

      Delete
    25. You are no lawyer Webb and you are no sexual abuse counselor. You're a lousy reporter has been who supports a convicted child molester. You're sick. Go burn in hell.

      Delete
    26. Huh. That is interesting. But, you are still talking about 1 witness. Throw the Gingerbread House interview out, you still have the 5 others that you mentioned + B. Owen + what Joey did to himself (+ I'm sure there are more I've forgotten). Truth is, had I been on the jury I may have made a decision based on what I heard from the victim and Joey alone. And don't forget, Ellis & Navarro County didn't go looking for these charges or make them up, the victim's mother chased down LE to get justice for what happened to her son.

      Delete
    27. The rape of the child came long before Joey 'reporting' on the Gingerbread house. It's completely irrelevant and a dumb conspiracy created in Joey's mind. Why are we discussing this at all? Webb wants an excuse to HURT the family and this child and find blame other than Joey. It's sickening to the core.

      Delete
    28. NBTDT: Yes. It recently came to my attention and I had never noticed that connection between Ellis County and Navarro County before with the case. All divisons of law enforcement in counties, such as the DA, police chief, sheriff, etc., have representatives sitting on the board of directors of child advocacy groups. It doesn't mean that there was anything improper, just that child advocacy workers are in a loop that might give them unusually privileged access to information about what would be going on with a case from arrest to conviction.

      Delete
    29. Hey, that's a good point. Gingerbread House, the half way house, Joey's interest in and reporting of child sex crimes - all of it came AFTER the rape.

      And again why are we re-hashing this? Joey is solely responsible for the rape. It's not Navarro County's fault, not Ellis County's fault, not the DA's fault, not Bobo's fault, not Gingerbread House's fault. It is JOEY'S FAULT that he is in prison for 30 years.

      Delete
    30. And yes, NBTDT, based on what the jury heard and saw I don't think it could have reached any other conclusion. I think the harshness in the outcome came as a result of the judge stacking the 10-year sentences. That surprised me as I really didn't think he would do that. JD, who started reporting about anything and everything in Ellis County and pissing people off in 2004, and this case will always be a source of curiosity to me. At this point it amounts to JD turning into a sexual predator fixated on a male teenager for one night only. How does that happen? If anyone can enlighten me I would appreciate it.

      Delete
    31. @ Anon 7:33 - I am surprised that Navarro has an advocacy center that wasn't used in Joey's case. But, I'm not surprised at the connections & privileged access to info. And, I don't have a problem with that. I think that is in the best interest of any child that has been molested.

      Delete
    32. We covered this before too - I don't believe for a second this was a one time occurrence. I believe this was the one time Joey got caught.

      As regards to pissing people off - sure he did. But, most of the people Joey pissed off are much more sophisticated than Joey. Joey was no more irritating to them than a pimple on their behinds. He certainly was not worth the effort of organizing a conspiracy on a scale that you are suggesting. Those people have better things to do than pop pimples.

      With regard to the harshness of Joey's sentence, all I can say is - he didn't get life. I sat on a jury in Ellis County for a man found guilty of 2 counts of molesting a child. That man received 2 life sentences, deliberation in the sentencing phase took 10 minutes.

      Delete
    33. How old was the child, was violence involved and what was the relationship to the child?

      Delete
    34. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I'm pointing out something I hadn't noticed that has surprised me.

      Delete
    35. "How old was the child, was violence involved and what was the relationship to the child?"

      It doesn't matter - rape is rape. But, there was no violence, no physical evidence and the child reported it 3 or 4 years after the events.

      Delete
    36. I will add: the defendant testified. After hearing the victim's testimony and the defendant, I didn't need any other witnesses to decide guilty or innocence. However, Gingerbread House did interview the child on video and presented testimony. The video was instrumental in persuading 3 other jurors the defendant was guilty.

      Delete
    37. It seems like there is a difference if the child is prepubescent or pubescent. Perhaps not a legal difference, but it seems like two different types of crime.

      Delete
    38. Child rape is child rape. Joey is guilty of raping a child. Your insistence that the child is to blame even now because of the shape of his body is revolting. You belong in hell Webb for all you've done to this child and his family.

      Delete
    39. That's another curious point. In the case of JD, the victim was not taped. A news story I found quoted them as saying they always taped interviews. I was also surprised to see that.

      Delete
    40. I heard the victim was taped but the tape was lost. Honestly, I think I really do understand your issues with this situation and conviction. But, I also think you are over thinking it. I'm with the other Anon chiming in here.

      Joey very skillfully (indicating it ain't his 1st rodeo) used alcohol to lower the child's inhibitions and seduced him. It's rape and it inexcusable.

      Delete
    41. Please have Joey Dauben's victim contact the email below. It's important.


      BRSimpson19@gmail.com

      Delete
    42. NBTDT: you are right. Sometimes, I guess you have to just let it go because you will never fully understand everything. Thanks for being polite and indulgent.

      Delete
    43. Please have Joey Dauben's victim contact the email below. It's important.


      BRSimpson19@gmail.com

      Delete
    44. Please have Joey Dauben's victim contact the email below. It's important.


      BRSimpson19@gmail.com

      Delete

    45. 2 years ago, David Webb wrote about NAMBLA -

      http://www.dallasvoice.com/orientation-illness-1083747.html

      In response to a comment I made about his initial complaint, the reader wrote, “You are confusing sexual orientation with criminal activities. There is abundant evidence that most child molesters are not pedophiles (not primarily attracted to prepubescent children), and that most pedophiles are not molesters.

      Well, I not only did not understand the difference, I was bewildered, to put it mildly.



      David Webb writing on this blog as Anonymous -
      Anonymous June 8, 2013 at 8:25 PM

      It seems like there is a difference if the child is prepubescent or pubescent. Perhaps not a legal difference, but it seems like two different types of crime.


      Did David Webb have a change of heart and now understands and perhaps now supports NAMBLA or leaning in that direction? Of course that's an opinion only based solely due to Webb's own comments, articles, attacks on the raped child, his family and the apparent continual strong defense of a convicted child rapist.

      This appears to be a very fascinating topic for Webb who seems to be trying to understand sexual attraction to children. Why would someone from the LGBT research the topic and befriend and write to Joey in prison - a man who is convicted of raping a child.

      What his his obsession about it? Why the need to continually put out information against the raped YOUNG innocent teen and his family? Why attack and try to shame, defame and discredit the teen? What is the true motive behind Webb's comments? It's incredibly suspicious and deeply disturbing to say the least.


      Delete
    46. Did you not notice the reference to pre-pubescent and pubescent involvements both as crimes? It just appears there are different dynamics involved. It is about understanding the nature of the beast, not condoning it.

      Delete
    47. You have no right to come on here or anywhere in attempts to defame or attack the innocent rape victim nor his family. None. The only motive you have is support and defense of Joey. It's also obvious and incredibly scary how you are also stalking the rape victim by mentioning potential pics he may or may not have on his facebook. How dare you. There is NO reason for you to do that. None at all.

      Delete
    48. I am not attacking anyone. This was a high-profile criminal case of public interest, and I think it has raised a lot of issues. Most importantly, I think the number one lesson is that parents should be protective of their children and not leave alcohol available to them and to allow them to wander around after dark on a camping trip where who knows what might happen to them. At least the young man is still alive. What if someone with even more sinister plans than sex might have come across them? Secondly, I have become aware since writing that column that so enranged NAMBLA (and I still stand behind everything I said) that there is actually a term of which I didn't know at the time. It is called Ephebophilia, the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. I had never heard of it before, and I think that is something all parents should be aware of for obvious reasons. I am not attacking the victim or his family, just stating the facts that were laid out in the trial. It is odd to me that the victim posted a certain picture of himself on Facebook, but I am broad-minded. Contrary to what someone else said about it perhaps meaning he was gay, I don't necessarily think that. It was just a strange photograph. I have never mentioned the names of the victim or his parents. I wish none of them any harm. Finally, I have no problem standing behind anything I have to say so I'm posting this under my name. I had quit using it because it so enraged a certain member of this group to see my visage and name. I certainly am not stalking the victim, although I suspect based on information that came out during the trial that on more than one occasion he befriended me on Facebook using a false name. I have since deleted him.Finally, I'm not trying to defend or rehabilitate the image of Joey Dauben. That would be a lost cause. It is way past repair.

      Delete
    49. "Reporters" don't know what paragraphs are?

      Delete
    50. Spin it however you want Webb, your motives are sinister.

      Delete
    51. You are one sick woman, and your irresponsible behavior raises doubts about the integrity of the child advocacy movement. It is a noble cause, but it is frightening to know a woman like you are involved in it.

      Delete

    52. Wow you really do have some deep seeded problems far FAR beyond anything that is remotely connected to me. You think it's frightening I help children?

      LMFAO that's the most hilarious thing ever given I've dedicated my entire LIFE to protecting, working with and most importantly - healing children. You on the other hand, continue to destroy people all around you including abused and raped children but refuse to do anything to change your sick behavior.

      Our home is always ALWAYS full of children and teens. They trust us, feel very comfortable because we provide a very safe and healthy atmosphere. David Webb knows NOTHING at all about my life therefore his opinion of me is completely irrelevant, ridiculous and laughable. I'm simply a misdirected outlet for your rage. What really troubles you Webb has nothing to do with any comments or opinions I hold regarding who and what you are.

      How about YOU STOP hurting the child rape victim of Joey. STOP posting things about his family and making dumb-ass excuses for Joey.

      Delete
    53. The only sick one I see is Webb who's attacking a kid. WTF is wrong with him?

      Delete
  7. Brenda has not been served.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Attorney: if you are still hanging around - I have a question.

    Why isn't Windsor's MO complaint not subject to summary judgement under the MO anti-SLAPP statute? I thought at first MO didn't have one, but they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why isn't Windsor's MO complaint not subject to summary judgement under the MO anti-SLAPP statute?

      Er, I'm not sure what to make of the double negative there. "Why isn't ... not subject?"

      Anyway, yes, a little Googling reveals that Missouri does indeed have an anti-SLAPP statute. Here's what subdivision 1 of that statute says:

      Any action against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting, in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or any political subdivision of the state is subject to a special motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment that shall be considered by the court on a priority or expedited basis to ensure the early consideration of the issues raised by the motion and to prevent the unnecessary expense of litigation. Upon the filing of any special motion described in this subsection, all discovery shall be suspended pending a decision on the motion by the court and the exhaustion of all appeals regarding the special motion.

      A subsequent subdivision of the statute says that if a defendant in such a lawsuit prevails on such a "special motion," the plaintiff is liable for the defendant's "reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by the moving party in defending the action." (That, frankly, is a bigger deal than what's in subdivision 1.)

      All that said, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Has somebody declared that Windsor's lawsuit isn't subject to Missouri's anti-SLAPP statute? Possibly it isn't; under subdivision 1, quoted above, that statute only applies to a lawsuit filed on the basis of "conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting, in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or any political subdivision of the state." Does that description match Windsor's suit against Ms. Overstreet et al.? Possibly it does, but I'm not so sure.

      Has something happened in the lawsuit that causes you to conclude that the anti-SLAPP statute doesn't apply? All that that statute does is give the defendants the right to bring one of a handful of dispositive motions (motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for summary judgment) in an expedited manner, and with the added incentive of possibly getting their attorney's fees and costs covered if they win. (There are risks, though, too: if the motion is deemed frivolous, they have to pay the plaintiff's costs and fees.)

      To my knowledge, Ms. Overstreet and her co-defendants haven't done anything in this case yet—or at least they haven't tried to get rid of the case via motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. So unless I've missed something, I don't think the court has expressed any conclusion about whether this case is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute or not. Have you seen some news that I haven't?

      What leads you to believe that Windsor's complaint isn't subject to the statute? Is it perhaps confusion about what "summary judgment" means (i.e., you're not aware that the court can't grant summary judgment until and unless a defendant asks for it)? That's the only guess I have about where your question is coming from.

      Delete
    2. Sorry about the double negative. I realized my error after I hit the publish button and hoped no one would notice.

      Based on what I've read of cases in TX, this law was written to protect people like me from people like Windsor. If I had been served with a lawsuit that may be a SLAPP and I have only have 60 days to file a motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, it seems to me the first thing I would want my attorney to do is file that motion. Maybe I am confusing terms - but I want the judge to throw the darn thing out, I don't care what you call it. I want to avoid legal fees, interrogatories, depositions and discovery.

      As relates to the MO complaint: if we haven't passed 60 days, we are getting close and there has been discussion of discovery. As such, it would appear this case is not viewed by Allie's attorney as protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. So, I was wondering, why not?

      Delete
    3. Okay. I don't think it's clear at all that the Missouri statute applies to Windsor's suit. The "PP" in "SLAPP" stands for "public participation"—and I don't really see where the allegedly defamatory (and allegedly emotional-distress-inflicting) statements that Windsor is suing over involved the defendants' participation in any kind of public hearing or proceeding or some such. Under subdivision 1 of the Missouri statute, if you (as a defendant on a claim) can't show a connection between the claim directed at you and "a public hearing or public meeting," the statute doesn't apply to that claim; you can't file the "special" motions created by the statute.

      Windsor's suit seems to me much more a garden-variety defamation action (though, as far as I can tell, a bogus one), not a SLAPP suit. Windsor isn't an oil company trying to sue its critics into silence while it seeks government approval for a pipeline or drilling platform or something; he's just a random guy who doesn't like what certain other people have said about him on the internet. If that's a SLAPP situation, then it would seem that just about any defamation claim would be a SLAPP situation.

      But maybe I'm missing (1) some factual element of the case and/or (2) some interpretation that the Missouri courts have placed on the state's anti-SLAPP statute. So I'm certainly not definitively declaring that the anti-SLAPP statute doesn't apply. I just haven't seen a cogent explanation for why it would.

      Delete
    4. As for next steps, even presuming that that anti-SLAPP procedure isn't available, the defendants are still well within their rights to file a motion to dismiss. They might do that tomorrow. Alternatively, they could file a motion for summary judgment (or motion for judgment on the pleadings) some time down the road. I've filed each of those three kinds of ("dispositive") motions in various (non-SLAPP) cases; they remain weapons in the defendants' arsenal regardless.

      We should also note that before defendants have any responsibility to do anything, whether anti-SLAPP or not, they have to be properly served with process (i.e., the Complaint and possibly other documents, depending on the court rules). It's not clear to me that Windsor has properly served anybody yet, which would mean that no one has any obligation to respond at all, and that 60-day clock you're counting hasn't even started yet.

      But presuming service of process isn't a problem, my guess is that the defendants will file a dispositive motion fairly soon. The only other option would be to take the fight to Windsor: file an Answer to the Complaint (rather than a motion to dismiss at this point) and then serve Windsor with a brutally invasive round of discovery. For maximum pain, presuming you think you can prove it, you could file a lengthy Counterclaim along with the Answer, accusing Windsor of a list of misdeeds. (If he thinks Ms. Overstreet's online remarks have constituted defamation, harassment, stalking, etc., it would be interesting to see how he defends his own scorching online statements against such accusations.) The big downside to these more combative tactics, of course, is that (1) they would require vastly more time, money, and energy from the defendants and (2) they would basically give away any hope of presenting the defendants as innocent bystanders being randomly victimized by a vexatious numbskull. Declaring open war on Windsor would mean that a judge would be very likely to allow him to hit you with the same kind of scorched-earth discovery you're hitting him with—and this is one guy who enjoys engaging in brutal litigation.

      So, again presuming that somebody has been properly served, my guess is that we'll see a motion to dismiss (also known, though maybe not in Missouri (?), as a "Rule 12 motion") reasonably soon. That would mean that no discovery would need to take place, presuming the court granted the motion to dismiss.

      I'm not sure what the deadline for that motion would be; that's a matter of Missouri court rules.

      Delete
    5. I just looked up the Missouri court rules: in that state a motion to dismiss isn't a "Rule 12 motion," it's a "Rule 55.27 motion."

      Eyuuch—what a terrible name. WTF, Missouri?

      Delete
    6. @ Attorney, two of the 1,003 defendents were served correctly. And one of the 1,003 defendents has done what you explain above. We are awaiting the next step.

      Thanks for explaining here, in terms we can understand.

      Delete
    7. @ Attorney: thank you very much, you enlightened me & made me laugh, a 2'fer.

      Based on your recital of the law, TX appears to be more liberal in definition of public participation, to include internet postings such as sites like Ripoff Report or Yelp. A couple of the case studies I read were defamation complaints resulting from internet postings which were dismissed under the anit-SLAPP statute. TX may be more liberal because it is one of the more litigious states in the union.

      As regards a counterclaim - I'd be out on that one. That hardly ever turns out well and seems pointless against someone like Windsor. That's one reason I was asking questions about the anti-SLAPP statutes.

      Delete
    8. Susan you are not wanted nor welcome here. You were asked to leave months because you are an abusive human being. If you had children I hope they were removed from you. You're as sick as Windsor barging in here after you were banned. Rules don't apply to you right because you are better than everyone else. Like Windsor, even those in your real life cannot stand you and want nothing to do with you. No one here cares. Go away.

      Delete
    9. I am commenting to Susan.

      Delete
    10. It's too bad we have all been forced to go anon here out of our fear of Windsor. It gets confusing doesn't it?

      Delete
    11. @ Susie Q: aah, never mind.

      Personal insults from border line personalities may be annoying but are completely irrelevant.

      Delete
    12. "It's too bad we have all been forced to go anon here out of our fear of Windsor. It gets confusing doesn't it?"

      Who is "we"? Who was forced? Who is fearful? Who is confused?

      I, for one, am none of the above.

      Delete
    13. You were asked to leave this blog Susan and you do not respect that just like you do not respect anything else in your life. That shows your true character which puts you in the same category as Windsor.

      Delete
    14. I don't get the anon thing in most situations since most things said here could (and should) be backed by an identifier at the very least. For example, someone who posts as an anon, they could instead use the drop-down box and pick "Name", then put in something like "Hiding Just Because". They'd still be anonymous, but at least their posts can be attributed to one person.

      And hello, by the way. For anyone who doesn't already know, I'm Stacy Emerson. I live in Pierce County, Washington. Before figuring out that Bill was a con, I volunteered to serve as a state coordinator when he was traveling through here last year. Without any vetting whatsoever I was accepted, and sent what I consider to be a confidential list of Bill's "Subjects". I found this so unprofessional that I immediately started researching him. What I found led me to the decision to quietly bow out of any participation with Lawless America.

      My curiosity continued so I "lurked" for a while, and when seeing more things not adding up, I tried looking deeper into who Bill Windsor is, and that led me to this blog (and many other message boards, etc., all who have debunked him and his made-up b.s., but nowhere to the degree of Ginger and the Snaps).

      After my silent resignation, I wrote one message and one message only to Windsor via a facebook post to his wall, and he promptly C&D me, blocked me, hid my post, and deleted all the comments others posted in support of my post. It was not slanderous, libelous, rude, or anything but professional, yet as we all know, if you're not "with" Bill, in his mind you are against him, therefore end up on one or more of his many lists. I'm on this one
      here


      I've often wondered why he hasn't added me to more lists, but my best guess is he's scared of me due to my good relationships with local law enforcement, prosecutors, and elected officials, and he assumes they'd all commit mass corruption just to save me from his vexatious self, therefore why bother.

      To Bill, knowing you read every word on this blog, I will say again, I plan to continue to express my opinion of you being a fraud, whether it be on the internet, over the phone, in written communication -- everywhere and every way I feel like it, and don't bother yourself with trying to obstruct my ability to exercise this constitutionally protected right, for it will just end up another failure in your long list of failures.

      --------------------------------
      Permalink (unless he deletes or changes it) -

      http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1335:bill-windsor-of-lawless-america-has-requested-corrections-and-retractions-to-defamation-libel-and-slander&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105


      Delete
    15. Ms. Overstreet:
      [O]ne of the 1,003 defendents has done what you explain above.

      Thanks for the kind words. Which part of "above" do you mean? I laid out several possible tactics. Have you (I presume you're that "one," given your Missouri residence) filed an Answer, or a motion to dismiss, or something else? (You don't have to answer that question, of course. None of this is necessarily any of my business, if you'd rather it weren't.)

      Anonymous @10:39:
      Many states have modeled their rules after the FRCP so that a motion to dismiss does fall under their Rule 12. At least a dozen or more states, do not have rules that coincide with FRCP numbers.

      Yes, I am well aware of that. Why do you insist on lecturing an attorney as if he were a 1L in the first week of civil procedure class? Again, that strikes me as absurdly unprofessional.

      Life in Pierce County (Ms. Emerson):
      I don't get the anon thing in most situations since most things said here could (and should) be backed by an identifier at the very least. For example, someone who posts as an anon, they could instead use the drop-down box and pick "Name", then put in something like "Hiding Just Because". They'd still be anonymous, but at least their posts can be attributed to one person.

      I strongly agree. I really don't understand why so many commenters here (including at least two who consistently sign their comments—what in the world is that about?) insist on identifying themselves to the commenting software as "Anonymous." It makes so many comment threads horribly confusing.

      Obviously I'm not advocating everyone here comment under his or her real name. Many of us have very good reasons for deciding against that—though I admire the courage of Ms. Emerson and others who are willing to identify themselves.

      But hey, everybody: how about we each pick the "Name/URL" option and then choose a pseudonym (or even our real names, if we individually prefer) to sign our comments with? Rather than "Anonymous"? Wouldn't that make these conversations a lot less confusing?

      Delete
    16. sometimes though it is easier just to do anon and then sign your name...

      Delete
    17. Life in Pierce CountyJune 9, 2013 at 10:09 PM

      "But hey, everybody: how about we each pick the "Name/URL" option and then choose a pseudonym (or even our real names, if we individually prefer) to sign our comments with? Rather than "Anonymous"? Wouldn't that make these conversations a lot less confusing?

      Yes! (PLEASE to the many anons. Super pretty please.)

      Delete
    18. Yep Attorney, that's our condescending - everyone is "beneath her" Susan who knows very little in reality.


      Anonymous @10:39:
      Many states have modeled their rules after the FRCP so that a motion to dismiss does fall under their Rule 12. At least a dozen or more states, do not have rules that coincide with FRCP numbers.


      Yes, I am well aware of that. Why do you insist on lecturing an attorney as if he were a 1L in the first week of civil procedure class? Again, that strikes me as absurdly unprofessional.

      Delete
    19. the bold is a copy of Attorney's comment.

      Delete
    20. Ummmm, I think I have made that quite clear many times in here that I can see IP addresses, but way to unlock that big mystery. For the record, I have NEVER posted as an anon, simple as that. If others want to that's their freedom on here just as you, Susan, are abusing that freedom now. So thanks for that great heads up, but we will get back to the covering the very slight improprieties for Bill Windsor

      Delete
    21. Exactly 1, Ginger Snap....I thought I made that pretty clear on the previous comment, course you are exceptionally slow.

      And thanks but no thanks, I dont need you to be in charge of giving out the welcoming baskets to all newcomers on here.

      Delete
    22. ohhh so now you are accusing me of being intentionally deceptive by creating other ID's like "Attorney" or "NBTDT"? Again, I have never posted a comment or anything else other than Ginger Snap. Thank you for your baseless accusation that I'm a liar.

      Now, as to my argument with you...the main one is the hypocrisy that you continue to post as "anon" while giving us lectures about how unethical it is to post as "anon". "Attorney" and "Life in Pierce County", whom both may be me by your way of thinking, raised a very good point and I think it was more directed at those that use anon more so than a fundamental shift in the blogging policies. Neither one are "in good" with me or us or some kind of hidden team, but they both do have my respect based on what they say and how they think, which is really all that matters on here and something you never will have.

      Delete
    23. @Attorney: Your "WTF Missouri" comment sounded like you thought it highly unusual that they don't follow the FRCP rule numbers.

      It communicated nothing of the kind. Instead, it conveyed my feeling that categorizing the overwhelmingly common Motion to Dismiss under the unwieldy rule number 55.27 is notably convoluted and ugly. What I said is that Rule 55.27 is "a terrible name." You bizarrely inferred from that statement that I was surprised and/or previously unaware that some states "don't follow the FRCP rule numbers"—a notion that finds no support in my "terrible name" comment.

      To the contrary, all of three paragraphs above my "terrible name" comment, I had specifically pointed out that Missouri might not "follow the FRCP rule numbers":

      So, again presuming that somebody has been properly served, my guess is that we'll see a motion to dismiss (also known, though maybe not in Missouri (?), as a "Rule 12 motion") reasonably soon.

      Where in the world you got the idea that I needed to be informed that different states number their procedural rules differently I have no idea.

      As far as I can tell "Attorney" and Life in Pierce County are in good standing here, meaning they have not yet dared to disagree with any of your doctrine....

      False. I have openly disagreed with and corrected Ginger repeatedly on this blog. I have, however, done all that with somewhat more tact than you apparently feel moved to display.

      ... I don't see you taking the time to explain to them why their request to stop the anon posting will not be granted.

      I have never requested that Ginger "stop the anon posting." I don't recall seeing Ms. Emerson make any such request, either. I have no interest in telling the proprietor of this forum how he ought to run it. She and I, instead, have suggested that commenters on this blog post under pseudonyms (or their real names, if they prefer) rather than anonymously.

      Delete
    24. "I am using the "when in Rome" polic"

      The real question is why are you still in Rome? No one invited you, no one likes you, no one wants to hear what you have to say, and as you admit, you are not a citizen. So why are you still here?

      Delete
    25. All I'm saying is that since you DO claim to respect them, I would expect you to have the courtesy to respond to their suggestions/queries.

      To reiterate, I have no expectation that Ginger will respond in any way at all to the Attorney/Emerson suggestion that commenters here eschew anonymous posting in favor of pseudonymous posting. I did not direct that suggestion to Ginger, and I do not consider it the slightest bit disrespectful of him not to have responded to it.

      When I have criticized and/or corrected Ginger on issues other than this one, I have found his responses to be entirely respectful and appropriate—which is not to say that we agree on all of the issues involved; in fact, I gather we don't. I believe and hope that Ginger feels that my submissions have been likewise respectful.

      Delete
    26. Attorney, as usual, is exactly right and has always been most tactful and respectful of not just me but anyone else even in disagreement. You are more than welcome to voice difference of opinions on anything that is cover on here including how its covered. But your sole purpose is to destroy the credibility of the blog and anyone who comments on it. That is why you are treated as hostile, not because you disagree.

      Delete
    27. Hi Attorney,

      I didn't feel like taking the time to respond to Susan, but I'll give you my two cents. I tried to find the comments where this was discussed a good while back, but I haven't had enough time to have any luck with it.

      We looked into removing the anonymous posting option a long time ago. However, there are only a couple options for "reply as" settings in blogspot. Basically, if you take away the "post as anonymous" feature, you also take away the "Name/Url" feature. And, you basically force people to be signed into an account like Wordpress, AIM, or Google. We decided at the time that there were people who might want or be able to do that - mobile technology problems or simply being wary of signing up for a service. Basically, the freedom and accessibility come at a cost. I believe the majority of posters on here agree that we wish everybody would sign their posts, but . . . well, oh well. Anyway, I hope that helps you know that there is a method to the "madness."

      Delete
    28. This comment was directed at Susan I assume?



      You are more than welcome to voice difference of opinions on anything that is cover on here including how its covered. But your sole purpose is to destroy the credibility of the blog and anyone who comments on it. That is why you are treated as hostile, not because you disagree.


      Delete
    29. OReader:
      Basically, if you take away the "post as anonymous" feature, you also take away the "Name/Url" feature.

      That's too bad. Poor design on Blogspot's part, it seems to me.

      I believe the majority of posters on here agree that we wish everybody would sign their posts, but . . . well, oh well. Anyway, I hope that helps you know that there is a method to the "madness."

      It does. Thank you!

      Well, I guess that means we need to up the energy level on our "Hey, Everybody: Let's Pick Pseudonyms And Post Under Them!" effort. C'mon, gang: all the cool kids are doing it!

      Delete
    30. someone had a pretty good idea, I guess we stopped doing it, but if you dont want to pick a specific name just pick a John/Jane Doe name and number 1-1000 and stick with it

      Delete
    31. Susan, your continual comments on a blog where you were not only banned from but clearly not wanted at all shows that it is YOU who acts like "Bitler".

      You want to force your opinions or BS comments on others on the blog whether we like it or not. You always manage to do it in a way that leaves you - HEIL SUSAN - the superior being and all others combined unworthy of your presence. If we don't bow down to your greatness, you abuse people in a very underhanded and vicious manner.

      You are a very disturbed individual. Clearly something happened in your life that caused you to be so hostile, angry and hateful. You do not matter to me or anyone else here in the least. But yes, feel free to completely disrespect the blog, get around your banned IP and post your condescending comments. It will only prove to everyone else reading what a loathsome person you are.

      Delete
    32. Freedom of speech does not mean you get to force your loathsome self onto anyone you please. The freedoms in this great Country also means we have the right not to be forced to keep you around.

      How can it be that a dozen or more people all have the same issue with you? Yet you keep insisting it's everyone else BUT you is the problem? Hummmm ya.

      Delete
    33. @Anon9, when did I say "everyone else" is the problem?

      Delete
    34. Who cares? If the blog is slow or others are posting as anonymous, in your feeble brain, it must be because people are hiding or don't want to post? Give me a break, how lame.

      Your fabricated excuses without any basis in attempts to define and lump all of us together on this blog are an actual direct reflection and insight to what and who you are in your real world. What you obsess about or attack others on here is what you hate the most about yourself Susan. Must be a very lonely ugly world you live in. How sad.

      Delete
    35. Anon 5:08, I like being lumped with you. My thoughts precisely regarding why Susan hates what she hates.

      Delete
    36. @anon 5:08, that is a very hurtful post you wrote. I am devastated. I hope you are happy.

      Delete
  9. Speaking of Schied....did anybody see Barbara's LA's FB post?

    Barbara Iserman Schied CLYDE A. SCHOEN... t.x - f....d

    I didn't want to read too much between the dots. So I Googled Mr. Schoen. For heaven's sake. The ad for his firm reads "Creative Accounting Solutions". Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol....pretty much what those dots said.

      Delete
    2. Fuck off Susan

      Delete
    3. This blog seems defeated yet Susan still can't stay away. Her & Webb are just to attention starved. What's wrong,did being the only commenters on y'all's blogs get lonely again?

      Delete
    4. Um, yeah Susan, if you read the anti-SLAPP statute it is exactly for this type situation.

      Delete
    5. Um, your crystal ball is apparently broken. You can't have any idea what I was reading so you are speaking out of your ass. As usual.

      But, that's not the real issue now, is it? Why are you so intent on insulting me?

      Forget about me, let's talk about you. Why do you feel it is necessary to insult everyone here? Are you so lonely and insecure that this is the only way you feel superior? There are so many other options available to you. For someone one like you, I would suggest equine therapy or a hobby like natural horsemanship. Horses give great feedback in teaching communication skills, verbal and non verbal. They don't have hidden agendas and they never lie. I've seen horses help turn many ass holes, such as yourself, into much better humans.

      If that doesn't work, try asking your doctor for a happy pill.

      Delete
    6. The fact is that there is something seriously wrong with you. I am sincere in hoping that you seek the assistance you need to feel better about yourself. This is the last response you will ever receive from me. Go ahead, insult away if that is what truly consoles you.....I have tremendous personal power and security, it won't effect me in the slightest way.

      Delete
    7. K... got it, this is, without a doubt, the worst place in cyberspace. So why are you and Webby still here? You both have your own party of one blogs. You dont see me posting on them do you? Maybe you can combine them in to a party of two blog and make sweet music together.

      You are like a repeat customer at a fast food joint....you complain about the food, the service, the table, the atmosphere and the price, yet you back in the next day for the same thing.

      Delete
    8. everyone is their own person...maybe someday you will understand that.

      Delete
  10. So sad....now Bitler is going after Jennifer Collins--a young abuse victim who is trying to help others and advocate for children. He's accused her of all sorts of things she didn't do. It's posted on her FB page. He's officially off his rocker. ~Ardith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ardith he is doing that because of me. JC saw it on the dog blog. I filmed with bill when my ex kidnapped our child against court orders and my DD missed nearly a month of school. BW accused me of being her and the other petunia lol. Dog blog aka Janice is not protecting JC because jc runs courgeous kids and Janice wants ckn gone so her kid group can replace it. Janice has groups for everything. She also has a group that i think she wants to use to replace no as as well. Janice is very twisted. This is why when jc posted on dog blog it was not approved. Janice Levin on of pma and dog blog is one twisted individual.

      Delete
    2. Well well well...I go on vacation and the fan hits the sh!t. Did Allie say Bill is suing her and over 1000 other defendants? He thinks AMPP has 33 members? I thought all his enemies were AMPP followers, so which "hate" group are the other 97X people with? I guess I have to go hunting down that list to see who are actually "members" of AMPP and who else is on that list of 1000.

      As for poor Jennifer Collins...she was WARNED and so was Holly. In fact if you go back to the original mess on Petunia Piggs page that got AMPP involved, Jennifer posted on there. She knew what was going on way ahead of time. Her and her mother made a conscious choice NOT to trust the other mothers they helped and instead believed in Bill. Perhaps it was not a trust issue, perhaps they were wanting to use Bill to promote their book.

      As must has I have disliked Bill and all he was doing from the start I do have to give the man credit for exposing all of the wolves in sheeps clothing (Hi Janice Levinson woof woof) as well as all of those who have been victim harvesting for the purpose of financial gain.

      IMO the groups have been split for a long time, many did not understand why. Now it is pretty clear. I have observed every mother's rights group get slammed for messing over the other mothers EXCEPT for AMPP. Perhaps because that is the ONLY one of the groups created and run by a mom who lost her child after coming forward with abuse.

      The recent victims, who have heard our calls for help in regard to Bill in the past, I have no sympathy for. Jennifer and Holly did not come to the aid of the victims of Bill or heed warnings. Within their groups and their positions they had the influence to prevent many moms from jumping of the lemming cliff.
      I am so pissed my tassels are twirling at 90 mph *~*Redd*~*

      Delete
    3. I forgot to add that perhaps all 33 of those AMPP members may want to consider changing their names to Barb Windsor....*~*Redd*~*

      Delete
  11. Wow--so very sad. I've been accused of being Allie BTW by Bill, which I'm not. Jen Collins seems like a very, very nice young lady. I wish her the best. I've never heard of Janice believe it or not! Thanks for the info!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meh, seems every time someone looks sideways at him and he doesn't know their real name, he automatically writes a big ass claim that it's me, the ampps, or Boushie. It's as if his pea brain can't fathom admitting he just doesn't know the entire world. Or he just can't make himself admit that calling someone a liar (with proof coming out your arse) is not a death threat or defamation.

      He must sit around all red faced and mad, thinking if he just says it's us, people will believe him. But who is left to believe him? Less than a dozen, that's who. Like he has the women covered if he blames me. The men covered if he blames Boushie. And the groups covered if he blames the ampps. It's disgusting really, in my opinion, the way he defames people in a very aggressive way, when they aren't even the ones who did whatever the hell he says they did in the first place.

      No wonder he looks like shit, can't hold a microphone still, can't focus, and is getting tore up from the floor up. He's chasing his own shadow.

      Delete
  12. Hedosent even have the wind to chase his shadow.... He would pass out.

    9 days to piemagedon!!!! I'm sure that date will change...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happens in nine days?

      Delete
    2. I get that. What is it?

      Delete
    3. when Bill goes to stalk and harass Tiny, his family, friends, neighbors, work, etc under the false guise of a t.v. gig.

      Delete
  13. Y'all know how I am, just had to know the other side of the story Bill was filming in Vegas. Why would a guy get shot because he had a Blackberry? Well, a Blackberry didn't get him killed. Even the dead guy's own father knows and acknowledges the dead guy carried a Kimber .25. And those 25 witnesses that have signed sworn affidavits that the dead guy had a Blackberry, not a gun? Yeah, where were they during the coroner's inquest?

    So, the dead guy, Erik Scott was a West Point grad, claimed to be an ex Green Beret. He had aches and pains, was being treated by at least one pain management doctor. He had a script from one doctor who never treated him, the doctor has no idea how Erik got a script in his name. (Although, it is rather suspicious that Erik's girl friend was an ex employee of the doctor.) Erik was taking as many as 32 drugs and supplements. When he died, he had enough morphine in his system to be lethal to a non drug addict. At the inquest, the pain doctor that admitted treating him testified that Erik was addicted to hydrocodone. Erik also took prednisone, testosterone and several other growth steroids and hormones. Anybody that knows anything about drugs will know that a lot of one pain killer or one steroid can cause a person to be angry. Mix a bunch of them together, you get a seriously pissed off person with a bad liver.

    Erik went shopping in Costco with his girlfriend. He was apparently in a rage and causing a ruckus in the camping section. While trying to do something about the rage, a store manager or security noticed that Erik had a gun in his waist band, which is prohibited by store policy. Even for folks with a license to carry. Erik was asked to leave the store but made a big deal about being ex military and having a right to carry his gun. Costco called 911.

    The dispatch tape is posted below. The call was given to the officers as a problem with a disturbed individual with a gun. In route to Costco, the officers arranged for EMS to stage near by, for all responding units to arrive without lights & sirens to avoid "spooking" Erik and they arranged for Costco to quietly empty the store.

    It's not clear how Erik met the officers outside the store. But, when they all met, the officers had their guns drawn and Erik announced that he had a gun. Rather than follow the officers' orders to get on the ground, he reached for the gun in his waist band and was shot 7 times by 3 officers. When the shooting was over, the Kimber .25 was on the ground next to Erik. In the ambulance, another hand gun was found in Erik's pocket.

    There were several witnesses who actually saw what happened as it happened. At the inquest they testified the first officer that fired his weapon shouted "don't do it, don't do it, don't do it" as Erik reached for his waistband, right before he fired his weapon. Conflicting testimony was given by other witnesses, some of those said they turned around AFTER they heard gun shots. At any rate a jury found the officers' shooting justified.

    It may be important to note, because Bill won't: Erik had been married twice, both ex wives complained of domestic violence. Erik also pointed a gun at his neighbor in dispute over a dog. The girl friend that was with Erik when he died was a no-show at the inquest.

    In my opinion, the police officers responding to this call did exactly as expected. They trusted their instincts, adhered to their training and were proactive every step of the way in attempting to minimize the situation to protect the public and themselves.

    http://www.8newsnow.com/category/192532/costco-shooting

    http://www2.8newsnow.com/audio/costco_ois.mp3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NBTDT, Thank you for always finding the truth to these stories. I really appreciate knowing the facts, rather than the BS Bill spin. Accountability always seems to be an issue with these people. It's not corruption, it's their poor choices, and not owning up to consequences of their actions.

      Delete
    2. @ Ninja: Thanks. Here's another one for you. You know that Matthew Orames posting on LA FB, always whining about he has diabetes and he want's Bill to look into his father's death? Well, here's the other side to that:

      Matthew's father, Dallas Orames died in Evansville, IL in 2006. Matthew hadn't seen his father in over 20 years. Dallas had been serving a 20 year prison sentence in TX until 2005. After he was released from prison he moved back to IL, he stayed in a homeless shelter during the day and sometimes with a nephew at night. According to the nephew, Dallas lost track of his 2 kids while he was in prison.

      Early one morning before dawn, somehow Dallas got in front of a garbage truck. He got run over and he died. The driver of the truck was drug tested, meth was found in his system and he was charged with that, a Class C misdemeanor. He wasn't under the influence at the time of the accident and he wasn't driving recklessly. The police could not prove that the truck driver was the sole cause of the accident, so they only charged him with having meth in his hair or urine. Also, he violated parole.

      Apparently Matthew thinks the driver should be charged in some way for Dallas' death because he's been robbed of his father. News reports indicate that police were unable to locate any of Dallas' family.

      http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/jul/28/gries-faces-charges/

      http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/feb/13/victim-didnt-die-homeless/

      Delete
    3. Awesome thank you NBTDT. Ya I was wondering about him. He is posting like a mad dog on Bills page. Yet another "NO CONSPIRACY" story. It was an unfortunate accident, and it sounds like Matthew has some personal issues with not seeing his dad prior to his death. That isn't the drivers fault. Accidents happen. Plain and simple. It's truly sad, but whatever guilt Matthew has, is with Matthew, and being angry with the Court system and the laws won't bring him back. It was an accident.

      Delete
  14. Does this sound like a man who's sick or just so full of shit he can't keep his stories straight? He's too sick to drive but he can go sightseeing in the heat and take almost 200 pictures.

    "Lawless America
    8 hours ago.
    LAWLESS AMERICA MOVIE FILMING RESCHEDULED AGAIN.

    I am finally feeling better, but I was advised to wait another day before driving. I've been dizzy and wobbly for several days."

    Posted just now

    Nevada: Las Vegas - Lawless America Movie Road Trip - June 8 2013 (195 photos)

    Bill Windsor of Lawless America did some filming on the Las Vegas Strip and then took a walk with the camera in 118-degree temperatures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol!!!!! Every one of his walking photos are taken within a block of the mgm, and on the same side of the strip. The only hotel he shows inside is...... HOOtERS!!! Then he shows one of the escort magazine boxes. Ya no wonder you are staying in Vegas you dity old fart. He's sleeping at hooties, deaming about mammaries.....

      Delete
    2. Ooga boobies...

      Delete
    3. He should just stay there and call Vegas home. He fits right in...

      Delete
    4. A 64 and 5/8ths yr old man gawking at 20 yr old girls is a perverted f*ck. Taking pictures of porn in Vegas shows he has zero respect for women. He loves degrading them and thinks that's all they're worth.

      Delete
    5. Good thing he's got money. He will have to pay for it.

      Delete
    6. This is all Bill has left? Mental patients out of touch with reality.

      Dennis Quaid is an actor in a show called Vegas Cruz Gomez, come back to the real world.



      Cruz Gomez Bil,l if you run across Dennis Quaid ask him if he knows of any Godfather type mobsters that will provide protection for me in case I wind up again at a kaiser Permanente hospital.
      6 minutes ago · Like

      Delete
    7. @Anon LMAO. Come back to the real world!! I don't know if they were ever her to begin with!

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm to lost to be anon that and I want him to know that his silly website along w all the others and designed row dummies, his crap is just that crap.

    That and when ever youv1st set up sites they are not even Google acknowledged some things like years of presence and so much more really go into the sites relevance.
    One of the 1 st major no nos is reeptive .....
    And that's all he does .

    Google will not page rank it bs stuff
    When I set up AMPP the domain host ( a dear friend of mine) who does web design seo some hosting as a living. Said he had never had a web site rank after 1st year let alone st page. AMPP did.

    So real web stuff then just my 20 years of mass publishing not to mention so many others, well it was perfect.

    His fake evil shit will disappear into internet archives. Assuming he pays the domain and host.
    All in all...
    Bills big bad wolf is really just another yes annoying but short lived as he self implodes.

    I will keep poking him when ever with full just me. Full Metak Jacket.

    Same for Janice levinson and her BITCH dog blog. 20 years of being me... The good bad and ugly.. it what makes me real trusted . Liars users and jealous little Pom pom girls. Like the sick twisted minds of the true hate groups will never build past high ranking, time, fact issue.
    And hate groups or just some dumb BITCH posting screen shots....puuuuleeeezzz

    That was so yesterday. (Decade at least)
    Worst she thinks she is a researcher thinks grade school locker room is a high topic?



    As with Bill she too will fade to dust.... The more the reliable source or org is and then the attacks to them... Well Google does not take it seriously.
    A lot goes into the design before it is ever even published. Then the rest is automatic.

    I learned a lot w AMPP, my old legacy AngelFury site omg. Eeeek... Don't edit any more. But heck considering I was a nurse who was pc illiterate ( don't even know home key.
    But 20 years, media sources news, actions, will always be the real...
    The truth consistent w outside strong resources linked back.

    I do mobile mostly for fun. AMPP was created as a pass along. Engage many and to simply grow with free thinkers.
    Think tank same think is the demise of all.

    * dude - Android users better than dolhin is Next...
    Why my post is so Long even on a home made OS DROID...

    Boom Billy (and Janice Levinson PMA) and omg her wanting Jennifer Collins and courageous kids gone?

    Never happen. They are solid and they are growing. Action, not shoe size IQ . Stupid people, there is no cure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you drunk or sumptin?

      Delete
    2. drunk AND sumptin

      Delete
  18. oops...lol it triple posted - not browser NEXT- but my OS on HTC needs some more cooking lol
    sry
    Keep on Keeping on!~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for all you do!
      *~*Redd*~*

      Delete
  19. What happened in Feb/mar 2011 that set bill off his rocker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's about the time Bill started reading various forums that declared he is a "nut" and the Supreme Court decided not to hear his case.

      Your history lesson starts here:

      http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?limitstart=714

      Delete
    2. Wow NBTDT that page has the history of many failures to launch in 2011. From trying to create a youtube group for people to upload their 3 minute testimonies on, to the first failed Facebook group, the I support the constitution blah blah page. Seems he just keeps spinning his wheels and revamping new ways to polish his turdish ideas.

      And just as Bill was wrong about corruption in his case, he continues on to film others who don't have corruption in their cases either. Just bitter people who can't accept responsibility for their poor choices. No wonder nothing is changing, he hasn't proven his case yet again, and never will. No one will take him seriously EVER based upon his well documented history as a frivolous, malicious, vexatious man. (those words are in Thrash's order)

      Delete
    3. LOL off his rocker...yes! April 8th????

      Lawless America
      4 hours ago.

      LAWLESS AMERICA MOVIE ROAD TRIP II UPDATE - JUNE 8, 2013 - 11 AM PDT:

      Filming resumes in Cedar City Utah at 4:00 pm Sunday April 8.

      To be scheduled Sunday or Monday, please contact Misty Cheek in Cedar City or email

      (I thought everyone had to be prescheduled, and they received email confirmation and directions, and why say on Sunday like it's days away when today is Sunday?)

      Delete
  20. I have a question and sorry in advance for not knowing all the fancy legal terms and lingo, but what IF,some crazy person was trying to file a ridiculous lawsuit against a bunch of people and was sending requests for discovery or whatever legal documents to the parties by email and also, based on assumption, sends them to attorneys that have nothing at all to do with the case. Like, he thinks they "might" be one of the ppl he's suings attorney even though he's never been told they represented anyone. I'm no legal expert for sure, but aren't those supposed to be like, private or something? I doubt I'm explaining this right, but hopefully the gist of my question comes across.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets see if this works...
      Attorney, Attorney, Attorney ^^^

      (LOL he said he felt like Beetlejuice)

      Delete
    2. @ Ninja: ROFLMAO.

      Maybe you need to yell.....ATTORNEY!!!!!

      Delete
    3. LOL OK! now we wait...

      Delete
    4. Oy. Hello.

      I'm no legal expert for sure, but aren't those supposed to be like, private or something?

      Not really. The attorney who receives the Windsor-like plaintiff's discovery requests should definitely discuss the matter with her client, who may wish to keep the matter quiet (a discussion that would be protected by attorney-client privilege)—but unless there are some very special circumstances involving, say, corporate trade secrets or something, there would be nothing preventing the person (i.e., the attorney's client) who received the discovery requests from telling the world all about them if he prefers to do so.

      The more pressing issue is that, barring some kind of uncommon circumstances, the non-party recipient of the discovery requests wouldn't be required to respond to them. If I get a letter from Bill Windsor that states "I think you're John Doe #937; now answer these Interrogatories," I'm fully within my rights to tell him to stick those interrogatories in his ear. Until Windsor makes me a party to the case, he can't (again, barring uncommon circumstances) hit me with ordinary discovery requests.

      There are other ways to get information from non-party witnesses, though. The most common one is called a subpoena. That I can't blow off (or at least I shouldn't), unless I'm very confident that the judge in the case would never force me to respond to it.

      Delete
    5. Okay, now I see that Anonymous @5:12's question left it an open possibility that the attorney receiving the discovery requests doesn't even have a relevant client.

      Well, then (once again barring uncommon circumstances involving things such as trade secrets, etc.) that attorney can do pretty much anything he/she wants with the requests. Publish them on a newspaper or blog, post (and mock) them on Facebook, throw them in the trash, whatever. If the Windsor-like plaintiff sent them to my office based on the wild guess that I represented someone he wanted to sue, I'd probably write him back and tell him to stop wasting my time.

      I'm very curious what led Anon @5:12 to ask this question. And I once again must emphasize that no one should consider my comments on this thread—or anywhere else on this blog—to be legal advice. Don't take legal action based on anything I say here, Anon (and everyone else). If you find yourself served with legal papers, you need to consult your own counsel.

      Delete
    6. The "Beetlejuice thing" was cute. Attorney, you're very kind, thank you.

      Delete
    7. Gosh, this Beetlejuice thing is so entertaining.

      To clarify, hypothetically: Say my attorney received discovery or interrogatory request accidentally from some fruit-loop suing somebody else. My attorney tells me about it, the requests are now our property and I can do whatever I want with them? Barring uncommon circumstances as detailed, of course.

      Delete
    8. you need to consult your own counsel

      Billy does that...literally.

      Delete
    9. Oh, Billy is serving us electronically because Missouri allows it, as long as he also serves the court on certain items and also serves us hard copy on certain items. Dum Dum served (sent via email) some discovery requests to some random lawyers. He has to send all that stuff to all parties in the case, and file his certificate of service with the court, but he added a few "Joe schmoe's off the street" as if they were a party to his case. They are two lawyers who have absolutely nothing to do with anything Bill related, are not any of the defendents lawyers, don't know Bill, and are literally just some random lawyers out in the world. What he sent, contains pretty private and sensitive information about two minor children. (As part of his fishing expedition and child exploitive discovery requests). He THINKS these two lawyers are retained by the defendent that hasn't even been served yet. Not only are they not hired as council, the defendent he thinks retained them has yet to get any notification of the case existing. Legal or not, private or not, protected or not, confidential or not......it's just stupid any way you cut it. Who the hell sends personal and sensitive case docs about kids, randomly out to strangers, based on a damn whim you think maybe, kinda sorta, might be the lawyers hired by one of your defendents?

      Delete
    10. Say my attorney received discovery or interrogatory request accidentally from some fruit-loop suing somebody else.

      Well, if it looks like an accident, that the requester didn't even intend for you (via your attorney) to receive the requests, then the wise move would probably just be to send the document back to the requester with a letter explaining that the documents appear to have been mistakenly sent to the wrong person. Given that it's an accident, you might not even realize that there's some kind of privileged or confidential information included in the documents—information that the requester never intended you to see. We attorneys are ethically obligated to avoid disclosure of privileged information, including privileged information that belongs to someone else's client (even if it's our opponent).

      But things are different if the requester did intend for you, a non-party to the lawsuit, to see the documents. Then there's no mistake, just (by our hypothesis) a wild guess that you're one of the John Doe defendants or whatever. That makes it much easier for you and your attorney to be able to tell that there's nothing in the documents that you could be expected to keep secret. Once you've determined that, it's really up to you to decide what to do with the docs.

      Delete
    11. Ms. Overstreet:
      They are two lawyers who have absolutely nothing to do with anything Bill related, are not any of the defendents lawyers, don't know Bill, and are literally just some random lawyers out in the world. What he sent, contains pretty private and sensitive information about two minor children.

      Aha. Yes, given that private and sensitive information, it would certainly be inappropriate to publicize the (entire) documents sent to those random attorneys. It may or may not be illegal (that depends upon exactly what information is in there), but regardless, if it's about kids it's just not a good idea.

      And, not that this is news to anyone here, but it was ridiculous of Windsor to send that stuff out to random attorneys in the first place.

      The child-information angle would have been useful information to mention in the first place, Mr./Ms. Anonymous June 9 5:12 PM....

      Delete
    12. "Ridiculous", yes, agreed. I'm going to start wearing a tee shirt that says "Ey, ask my f***'n lawyer".

      Irrelevant comes to mind. As in, the entire Windsor vs. Overstreet, et al case. It could be boiled down to one sentence, ie; Some people on the internet said some stuff I didn't like so I said some way worse stuff about them to defame, harrass, and scare them, then some of them mouthed back at me and since I have time, money, and anger, I am suing and stalking them as punishment for not liking me. Case closed.

      Delete
    13. I'm going to start wearing a tee shirt that says "Ey, ask my f***'n lawyer".

      If you ever produce such a thing, please let me know. I may need to give those shirts as gifts to a few of my clients.

      Delete
    14. @ Attorney & Allie: Thank you for further explanation & clarification.

      Delete
  21. Gingesnap, hello I need to contact you. can you please e-mail me at nolansmom4665@yahoo.com I don't know how to cut and paste infor you !!!! I am real old school... I was told to contact you.. I will be checking my e-mails after I drop my son off at school Monday morning.. anyhow... I hope that you have a nice evening!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. lawless Utah

    If you are afraid to come forward for fear of retribution and retaliation, PLEASE KNOW - Your face can be blocked and your voice can be altered. We can go to great measures to keep your identity concealed. Please know – We Understand! You can show up unannounced tonight after 8pm or tomorrow (Monday) after 1pm. If you want to be scheduled you will have to call the Utah contact to check for available times. 435-590-!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes. You can be anonymous UNLESS you EVER disagree with ANYTHING the boob says or does. Then the whole world will know your name, face, address, place of emplyoyment and favorite dining establishments.

      Delete
  23. Ginger Snap seems to have taken a hike. Maybe she got lucky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Webb, your little side comments always reveal what a sick mind you have. WHO SAYS STUFF LIKE THAT????

      Delete
  24. Bill Windsor is not only a raging douchebag, but he is also a nobody that is not even worth following anymore, and showing his own mental instability. Yes, go visit Connie. And pack your tooth brush.

    ReplyDelete
  25. New date set for fake Montana stalking trip!!! Now June 24th.

    T minus 14 days to piemagedon!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Where is the list of the names of the john does on this new lawsuit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What list? He doesn't know them yet. He added John Doe 1-1,000 so he could add names as he goes. He is particularly interested in obtaining and adding the names of the AMPP's and the Joeys. If he continues to act as he has over a year or so, he will be busy and angry the rest of his life out searching for everyone who ever says a negative word about him.

      The idea to include John Doe's in a lawsuit I believe, is to sue people you do not yet know who they are. To find out who they are through discovery on a defendent you DO know, then add that information to the claim. Plus, in his vexatious litigation situation he is avoiding having to ask permission for separate claims.

      Delete
    2. I think the list looks something like this:

      1. John A. Doe
      2. John B. Doe
      3. John C. Doe

      [...]

      998. John A. L. J. Doe
      999. John A. L. K. Doe
      1000. John A. L. L. Doe

      Ms. Overstreet:
      The idea to include John Doe's in a lawsuit I believe, is to sue people you do not yet know who they are. To find out who they are through discovery on a defendent you DO know, then add that information to the claim. Plus, in his vexatious litigation situation he is avoiding having to ask permission for separate claims.

      Yes, that's entirely correct, with the additional point that a plaintiff can also theoretically use third-party discovery measures such as subpoenas, as well as discovery on known defendant(s), to identify the Does.

      Delete
    3. I suppose then, that is what the request (and approval) for the 12 non party subpoenas was for. Although he will have issue finding anyone with credible knowledge of things that never happened. Thanks again @ Attorney, I had not paired the nameless subpoena requests to filling in the John Doe blanks. Makes sense.

      Delete
    4. Actually Allie I was talking about the publicized on the internet hate list. I imagine that he will be adding those names to the list very soon. I wish him luck on that lol. If he does name me I get free legal. They will shut him down.

      Delete
    5. Oh, I'm sure you're right anon 3:31. He has published several lists of people he WANTS to sue, or has filed criminal complaints on. Of course, all those complaints were so far thrown out with no action required and marked as no crime committed.

      If you go by his "lists", there are over 40 people. Many of whom he doesn't have names or addresses for. Just pseudo names.

      If you go by his threats to sue, offers to file criminal complaints, or promises to add to his list......you will be counting awhile.

      I think the list you may be referring to was 37. In a dot com article with a headline something like "Bill Windsor files criminal charges on 37 stalkers". Right? I have that somewhere.

      Delete
    6. If I recall, Anita P Ness was added to his list, along with several other interesting names, including his father. This should be good.

      Delete

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