Monday, February 24, 2014

Don't Mess With Texas


Windsor came in to Judge Bob Carroll's court this morning in what he told his followers was a "trial".  It was actually just a hearing on Google's special exception.  Not only was Google's exception upheld, but Carroll ruled that Bill must adhere to Judge Thrash's vexatious litigant ruling. Windsor tried to tell Judge Carroll about all the new motions, names and fillings he wanted to add but he was cut off mid-sentence and told that they were only there to address the Google issue. This means that Joeycon is on hold while Bill begs for a federal judge to let him sue his legion of unknown "haters".  Windsor's horrible reputation precedes him.

The back of Bill's head started to turn red as Carroll read his ruling.  Windsor's hands were visibly shaking as you could feel the rage building.  Now all his named defendants can be dismissed upon request while he waits for a federal judge to let him continue his frivolous lawsuits in Texas.  If the federal judge learns that Bill tried to sue 50+ judges in Georgia alone, he most certainly will not be granted permission.

Having suffered a huge loss today as his made up "trial", Bill is once again looking for a new home. The vexatious litigant is not allowed to ride in Texas and Georgia now, so where will he go to quench his insatiable thirst for frivolous lawsuits.

82 comments:

  1. I heard bill left so fast that the sheriff now has a sockpuppet in the lost and found at the courthouse. He must had dropped it after using it to wipe down his hot neck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the update, and thanks to Google.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe there is a conspiracy to be figured out about millions of missing socks from driers from across the nation. Just saying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Giggle snort snarffle!
      #sockconspiracy #hotneck #headturnedred #OBJECTION

      Delete
    2. @HOPPER: "Now all his named defendants can be dismissed upon request while he waits for a federal judge to let him continue his frivolous lawsuits in Texas." ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, AS USUAL HOPPER.
      If the federal judge learns that Bill tried to sue 50+ judges in Georgia alone, he most certainly will not be granted permission.
      REALLY? WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE TWO OTHER FED JUDGES DID GRANT PERMISSION THEN? SMH IDIOT, LOL.

      Delete
  4. Let's see...Billy grew up in Texas, went to school in Texas, married in Texas, and had numerous business ventures in Texas. After Billy got his buttocks kicked in Georgia, he escaped back to Texas. So...how exactly did Georgia mess with Texas? The fact is, even with all its faults, fake cowboys rarely come from Georgia. With all due respect, Georgians and Texans have loads in common---far more than just Billy Windsor. Actually, Georgians played a role with Texas' independence--check your history. In any case, thanks so much for the info!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lawless America Takes on Seinfeld
    Marty as George: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W__qCFWi1KA
    David as Seinfeld: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWTMa76BzH0
    Bill as Kramer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tujqM2u-BVo
    Mary D as Elaine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KXUVDUN2NM

    ReplyDelete
  6. Looks like there's finally some activity in MO.

    02/19/2014 Suggestions in Support
    Defendant files Suggestions in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
    Filed By: MATTHEW J OCONNOR
    Motion to Dismiss
    Filed By: MATTHEW J OCONNOR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw those announcements. I'd love to see what Mr. O'Connor's arguments are this time. (The previous Motion to Dismiss didn't go so well—but quite possibly the judge will be more receptive to dismissal arguments this time around. Windsor's behavior isn't exactly well-suited to convincing a judge to grant him much forbearance.)

      The lawsuits everyone here keeps talking about are frustrating for this spectator, because we don't really get to read any of the filings unless someone (usually Bill himself) posts them online. I wish Missouri (and Texas, and...) posted court filings online the way the feds do.

      Delete
    2. Geez, Attorney: You are really missing out on some fun. The Google response to Bill's motion for continuance is priceless. I would love to send you docs from TX. If you know how to reach Gingersnap, somebody here can probably fix you up. If not for the trouble makers, I would post my e-mail address for you.

      After reading Google's responses, I would like to see O'Connor's motion and suggestions. I'm wondering how similar they are to Google's.

      Delete
    3. "The previous Motion to Dismiss didn't go so well—but quite possibly the judge will be more receptive to dismissal arguments this time around."

      I'll bet the judge would be more receptive if he received a motion that met the requirements of the rules of civil procedure. Neither of the two motions to dismiss were/are in compliance.

      Delete
  7. The rulings in TX yesterday are a good news/bad news thing.

    Good news: more innocent people and people unaware of Bill's existence will be spared the trouble of dealing with Bill and a frivolous complaint.

    Bad news: Bill may not ever realize he and others named in the TX complaint were victimized by the very same people he is suing in other states.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I like him to sue Deanna kloostra that would be interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are there any links to O'Connor's motion?

      Delete
    2. Interesting?
      Hoping and liking for Windsor to sue ANYONE?
      Damn.



      Delete
    3. Meow ruff ruff

      Delete
  9. Windsor came in to Judge Bob Carroll's court this morning in what he told his followers was a "trial". It was actually just a hearing on Google's special exception.

    Impossible. Windsor never misstates the law....

    If the federal judge learns that Bill tried to sue 50+ judges in Georgia alone, he most certainly will not be granted permission.

    Well, maybe not. I think it's hard to say. Thus far in other states, Windsor certainly has had more luck getting permission from federal judges to proceed than I thought he would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. another little problem for Bill in this case vs the other ones is that he did send in a request to Judge Fitzwater but basically said if I don't hear back from you in two weeks I will assume I can go ahead and file. Judge Carroll told him thats now how things work

      Delete
    2. Could it be that the complaints filed in MO, KS and MT had more merit than the one in TX? I think there is a high probability that is the case.

      If the other complaints were not approved on merit alone, I think it's probable that state officials either didn't know what to do with Thrash's order or didn't like a US Judge in GA dictating what a state court can/can not do.

      Delete
    3. He got permission in MO, MT kinda acted like they didn't care but did he even get permission in KS?

      Delete
    4. @"Attorney": "Thus far in other states, Windsor certainly has had more luck getting permission from federal judges to proceed than I thought he would."

      That is because you do not understand that no court can prevent access to the courts, even if the plaintiff is vexatious, as long as the complaint establishes a colorable claim.

      It's disturbing that you can't understand such a fundamental right.

      Delete
    5. "It's disturbing that you can't understand such a fundamental right."

      what's even more disturbing, is the fact that you keep coming here

      Delete
    6. Betsi, the other USDC's know how to read Thrash's order. Their only job is to make sure the proposed complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. They are simply checking for an obvious fatal flaw such as attempting to sue a judge for something he did in the course of his duties.

      Delete
    7. And there she is! Our nits were getting thick, I was wondering when you'd come back to pick them.

      I think the point you don't understand is, nobody but you and Bill think Bill has a colorable claim. And in the one case where he actually could have made an argument for a colorable claim, he didn't. And he didn't fail just once - the final score is Bill 0, Judges 8.

      And it's disturbing that you can't understand Bill can not ever have a colorable claim against many of the defendants in TX.

      Delete
    8. Yoo Hoo, Snoozan over here...you should know by now I don't post as an Anon. Or, are you calling everybody by the wrong name now. Like Nancy.

      And you exemplify why Bill does not have a colorable claim in TX by continuing to call me by the name of a person Bill is suing just because the dipstick Allie/Booshie gang picked her at random off the internet.

      Delete
    9. Have you been drinking Betsi? YOU wrote at 4:33: " I think it's probable that state officials either didn't know what to do with Thrash's order..."

      I replied that they certainly did know what to do with the order, lol.

      Delete
    10. Oh, excuse me. You were picking at my nits.

      Well you are exactly wrong about Judge Thrash's order. The Judge Carroll paid attention to the intent of the order. Attempting to sue a judge just means Bill has to post the bond.

      Delete
    11. And you are wrong again. It's likely, just like with Judge Carroll, the other Judges have never dealt with an order like Thrash's and had to consider what to do with it.

      Delete
    12. I bet snoozy says that she knows more about the law then Judge Carroll, lol

      Delete
    13. Also Betsi, I have no reason to believe that you always sign your screen name. Why would I think that?

      I know you missed me but I do have a life.

      If in fact Willy has your name wrong, it does not negate his Texas claims.

      "I think the point you don't understand is, nobody but you and Bill think Bill has a colorable claim. And in the one case where he actually could have made an argument for a colorable claim, he didn't."

      I FIND IT INCREDIBLE THAT YOU COULD REALLY BE THAT CLUELESS ABOUT THE LAW. INCREDIBLE...AS IN, I AM SURE YOU KNOW THE TRUTH BUT YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE YOURSELF OTHERWISE.

      And he didn't fail just once - the final score is Bill 0, Judges 8.

      WINNING, LOSING, SUCCESS, AND FAILURE ARE ALL A MATTER OF PERCEPTION IN LITIGATION.

      Delete
    14. @Betsi: "And you are wrong again. It's likely, just like with Judge Carroll, the other Judges have never dealt with an order like Thrash's and had to consider what to do with it."

      SERIOUSLY? OMG. THE ORDER IS SELF EXPLANATORY. AT LEAST TO ANYONE OTHER THAN "ATTORNEY". IF A JUDGE CAN READ, HE KNOWS WHAT THRASH'S ORDER REQUIRES.

      Delete
    15. My perception that Bill is losing comes from the fact that he IS LOSING. And it's not just my name he has wrong, he has many others wrong. Aside from that I find it incredible that you are clueless about the 1st Amendment and other laws that are applicable.

      Did you read the MTSC opinion? The truth is Bill's credibility was called into question and he failed to prove his case. Not only did he fail to prove his case, he shot his case in the head by going to Montana to confront Booshie.

      Delete
    16. Well darn. You win. Clearly you should be instructing the judges, they don't all see it your way.

      Delete
    17. ...and Thrash too...let's not forget Thrash is only a mere Harvard law grad who built a successful law practice and taught law at Georgia State.

      I agree with you NB, federal judges handle vexatious litigant cases all the time--esp. from cons wanting to file a federal case because their peanut butter is too crunchy, or not crunchy enough.

      Delete
    18. SnoozAnon will never accept the vexatious order because she is also among those same types of people who annoy the courts with frivolous crap. Windsor does not have a "colorable" claim. Snoozan said Windsor is a liar many times, yet she believes what he writes in him motions. Forget about her, she has no clue about the real issues that Bill will deal with shortly.

      Delete
    19. "My perception that Bill is losing comes from the fact that he IS LOSING."

      It's like a war. In the end, someone will be declared the victor. But both sides will suffer losses such that there really is no "winner". That is just MY perception, ymmv.

      Bill is never going to win a judgment. He may or may not be aware of that fact, I don't know, so I don't know what his definition of success is.

      Yes, I read the latest on the series of PO cases in this saga.

      I am well aware that Bill is his own worst enemy. The same is true of the GENII.

      "Attempting to sue a judge just means Bill has to post the bond."

      WRONG AGAIN. Take note of what I said at 9:26: "They are simply checking for an obvious fatal flaw such as attempting to sue a judge for something he did in the course of his duties."

      The whole point of the pre-filing injunction is to make sure he has a legitimate claim. He is not going to be allowed to file a claim that is barred by judicial immunity. As for the bond, I don't remember the exact passage in the order, but I seem to recall he has to post a bond with the complaint if the defendant is a judge or other government official.

      Betsi, just because I am proving YOU wrong, does not mean I am saying the judges are wrong. It's a nice effort to deflect, but in the end, you were still WRONG.

      Sluggo are you drinking WITH Betsi? Your post makes little sense in the context of this conversation.

      Delete
    20. @10:46: "Snoozan said Windsor is a liar many times, yet she believes what he writes in him motions."

      On the contrary, I know what I read HERE, and I know how many actionable publications have been written by GENII. Whether BILL knows how to identify his claims correctly is an entirely different matter.

      Your "real issues" don't change the fact that you idiots have provided Bill with many actionable claims. That is my point. Most of you, being your own worst enemies, have given Bill plenty of actionable claims.

      Bill will ultimately lose and so will all of you.

      Delete
    21. Hey Snoozan, you really should get Marty Prehn to help you out with better telepathic and spying equipment. Because, the way you think that vexi order thing should go, is not how it went in Judge Carroll's court room. You can keep telling me I'm wrong all night long, that won't change the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Delete
    22. What are you talking about? Nothing in Carroll's court involved suing judges.

      I know Carroll told Bill to get permission from the USDC, lmao, and it's pretty funny since the petition is already on the state court docket. I also know you are clueless so it's pointless to try and explain how that order works. You don't get it and you obviously never will get it.

      However, since you are keeping score, maybe you want to check out my score. As far as I know, I have accurately predicted exactly what every court decision would be so far.

      Delete
    23. Sluggo are you drinking WITH Betsi? Your post makes little sense in the context of this conversation.

      What are you drinking for you to assume we're having a conversation?
      I'm posting on a site whose owner has been kind enough to welcome me here, but if that weren't the case and I wasn't welcome, I wouldn't be here--such behavior seems to me to be trespassing and extremely rude. You, on the other hand, are trolling and are unwelcome here. I don't think the distinction can't get any clearer than that.

      Delete
    24. I've said this before and I'll repeat it. I would LOVE to see a USDC deny Bill the right to pursue a colorable claim in any court.

      Now I really want to see the TX USDC deny Bill the right to file a case that is ALREADY filed in the TX state court. Such a decision will make front page news in the legal community. If TX dismisses the complaint based upon the USDC's failure to approve it, lmao, it will be double the fun.

      I don't see what Thrash's Harvard education has to do with anything. The part of the order that requires USDC permission before filing in a state court is void for lack of jurisdiction. I'm sure Thrash was well aware that he did not have the power to enter such an order, but he did it anyway. That's not about ignorance, it's about arrogance.

      The MO court all but said the order is void, lmao!

      Delete
    25. Oops...the distinction can't --> the distinction can

      Delete
    26. I used to think you were pretty smart, just a little off balance. But I don't think that after this string. You are way off balance and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you think ramming your twisted interpretation of Thrash's order down our throats and insulting me helps make your point more viable? And you call me clueless, too funny.

      And no brownie points for you, I think everyone accurately predicted every court decision.

      Delete
    27. Oh Sluggo, I have to assume you ARE drinking. What makes you think I said that YOU AND I are having a conversation? I said no such thing.

      What I said was that YOUR POST made no sense in the context of THE CONVERSATION you were commenting on. Betsi and I are CLEARLY conversing. You weighed in with a comment on something she said, in the course of having that CONVERSATION WITH ME.

      The only thing that involved YOU was my statement that a comment you made was senseless.

      Delete
    28. @ Sluggo: good point.

      If "I wasn't welcome, I wouldn't be here--such behavior seems to me to be trespassing and extremely rude. You, on the other hand, are trolling and are unwelcome here. I don't think the distinction can get any clearer than that."

      Delete
    29. Bahahahaha, I guess the "accurate" GENII predictions have taken place elsewhere.

      GENII predictions are ALWAYS that Willy will lose each battle. That is what you want to believe, so you believe it. History shows it's pretty safe to bet on Willy's opposition, so that is what you do. But you have been wrong how many times now? Let's review your erroneous predictions from the top of my head:
      1. Willy MUST file a bond in order to file a law suit.
      2. No USDC will let him file another law suit.
      3. Ally will win her motion to dismiss.
      4. Ally will win her TPO hearing.
      5. Ally will win her motion to remand to the USDC.

      Uh huh. Those CORRECT predictions must take place somewhere else, lmao.

      Delete
    30. Sluggo: I guess you prefer to talk about etiquette than your senseless post, LMAO. You have learned the way of the GENII well. NEVER own your shit, just try to change the subject.

      Delete
    31. hahahahaha - you are the idiot. You have paying attention to the wrong people. The people you just quoted are the same people that have sent Bill on wild goose chases, the very same people for which Bill does have a colorable claim.

      Delete
    32. Sluggo's post made perfect sense. You, on the other hand, have a problem with reading comprehension. Don't blame Sluggo for your problem.

      Delete
    33. But what does any of that have to do with the fact you're unwelcome here?
      I predict you won't answer, and the reason you won't is because it's inexcusable. Now, prove me wrong.

      Delete
    34. Betsi: "Do you think ramming your twisted interpretation of Thrash's order down our throats..."

      YOU MEAN EXPLAINING IT? FOR WHAT HAS TO BE AT LEAST THE TENTH TIME?

      "...and insulting me helps make your point more viable?"

      MY FIRST POST TO YOU IN THIS THREAD IS AT 9:26. IT IS A PERFECTLY CIVIL COMMENT ABOUT THE COMPETENCE OF THE JUDGES. BUT IT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT YOU SAID, SO LOOK AT YOUR RESPONSE TO ME AT 9:33.

      SO MY ANSWER IS, THE POINTS I'VE MADE IN THIS THREAD ARE ACCURATE THEREFORE I CAN'T MAKE THEM ANY MORE "VIABLE" THAN THEY ARE.

      YOU CAST THE FIRST STONE AS FAR AS INSULTS GO. TO THE EXTENT YOU QUESTION MY INTELLIGENCE BASED ON MY ABILITY TO HAVE A CLAM, CIVIL DISCUSSION, I SUGGEST YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

      Delete
    35. @Sluggo: So I should respond to YOUR accusation, even though you have not yet replied to MY original statement that your post was senseless? Again, FAILURE TO OWN YOUR SHIT.

      Regardless, I don't mind answering. I can't prove you wrong of course because it is an ethical question and the answer is dependent on how each individual regards open spaces on the net.

      I think we differ in our views of blog ownership. To me, this is a public space. There are other forums that make censorship much easier. THE HOPPER chooses to remain here, on a virtual street corner.

      This forum is open to the public. It could easily be made private, but THE HOPPER wants a public pulpit. He is not interested in simply hanging out with the rest of the GENII privately. He needs to believe he is a leader and that he has a voice. This blog allows him to believe those things. For him, this is ALL ABOUT public recognition. At one point THE HOPPER claimed there were thousands visiting this blog daily.

      Due to the public nature of the blog, I think THE HOPPER is entitled to the same respect as someone that is standing on a street corner espousing his views. YMMV.

      Delete
    36. @ 12:07: SERIOUSLY? EXCUSE ME BUT I HAVE A LIFE, LOL. I AM NOT AT YOUR BECK AND CALL. SMH

      Delete
    37. @1:08 Tell us about those street corners just a little more.

      Delete
    38. @ 1:44 - LMAO

      Snoozan: The problem is that you were trying to explain a theory that had no relevance to my comment that you initially trashed, actual real life events or Bill's TX claim. And the fact that you think you are more informed, educated and intelligent than all sitting judges, practicing attorneys and anyone posting here precludes any opportunity for a "CLAM, CIVIL DISCUSSION".

      Delete
    39. This forum is open to the public. It could easily be made private, but THE HOPPER wants a public pulpit.

      1) Your statement kinda eats into Billy's argument the site is a private "hate" club, doesn't it?

      2) From your logic, a restaurant owner doesn't have the right to deny you service or boot you if you're disruptive.

      I don't own my Sh*t.

      1) You think a blog post is the same as dyadic conversation, eg, two chatting in a tea room? Huh no, that's not how blogs work,
      but ok, let's take your definition anyway and I'll ask you, why did you think I was conversing with you and not NB when I made the comment about Thrash? She understood my post perfectly.

      this is ALL ABOUT public recognition.

      I agree-- YOUR public recognition





      Delete
    40. for the record.... I still think NBTD is a bully but calling her Besti, over and over again, make you no better then Bill W.....

      Delete
    41. @ 1:08 - For the record, people that call me a bully are usually disappointed because I stand my ground against the bullying behavior they themselves exhibit. Take your statement for example. Your opinion of me has nothing to do with the name Snoozan is calling me or the fact that a bunch of dimwit bullies pulled that name at random off the internet. But no, you chose to insult me first, before you made your point about the behavior of someone else.

      Delete
    42. Susan wrote: This forum is open to the public. It could easily be made private, but THE HOPPER wants a public pulpit.

      Sluggo wrote: Your statement kinda eats into Billy's argument the site is a private "hate" club, doesn't it?

      Susan responds: My statement represents my view. Why would I care if it is in conflict with someone else's view?

      Sluggo wrote: From your logic, a restaurant owner doesn't have the right to deny you service or boot you if you're disruptive.

      Susan responds: Do they serve fries here now? I don't think so. A blog hosted by a commercial service, is not a restaurant. Your analogy is way off.

      Sluggo wrote: I don't own my Sh*t.

      Susan responds: I know.

      Sluggo wrote: You think a blog post is the same as dyadic conversation, eg, two chatting in a tea room?

      Susan responds: How does a person standing on a street corner espousing his views equate with two individuals in a tea room, lmao? Or are you referring to my comments about a "conversation" here?

      Sluggo wrote: Huh no, that's not how blogs work,

      Susan wrote: Why don't you explain blogs to me?

      Sluggo wrote: why did you think I was conversing with you and not NB when I made the comment about Thrash?

      Susan replies: What makes you think I believed you were conversing with me? I already stated that I held no such belief. See 11:32 pm ^.

      Delete
    43. @1:08 am: "I still think NBTD is a bully but calling her Besti, over and over again, make you no better then Bill W....."

      You are entitled to your opinion. Your logic eludes me, but carry on.

      Delete
  10. Any letter he writes will be met with a follow up of the actual facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean we made it 24 hours without a fake victory dance?

      Delete
    2. if Bill thought yesterday was rough....look what happened to him in MT today http://supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/search/case?case=16449

      Delete
    3. Yay MONTANA! What a crack up! Even a few of BW's lemmings tried to warn him of this, but of course he refused to listen because he's ALWAYS right. What a piece of work he is.

      Delete
    4. I'm having a powder puff party

      Delete
    5. Seems they wrote exactly what we've been posting. Bill just can't accept that he is his own worst enemy. He should stop wasting all the courts time and taxpayer money. He's just wrong and needs to get over it.

      Delete
    6. Yep. I think it's time for Bill to consider a new career. This court thing is going to break him too. He's plopped down about $1,500 in the TX case, not including paying for all that paper, postage, the rooms with empty chairs & presumably a court reporter.

      Delete
    7. I had a dream...

      The magistrate who threw the paper wad at Billy was convicted of assault then fined $1 dollar, which he took out of his wallet, wadded up and again, threw at Billy.

      IMO, I think it's even odds Billy won't bother mentioning his latest defeats, he'll just go back working on the film...uh...B roll...

      Delete
    8. He was suppose to be filming in Ellis County. That of course was before the ruling, I wonder where abouts he is trying to film.

      Delete
    9. "Bill just can't accept that he is his own worst enemy."

      Indeed. He will destroy his own legitimate claims.

      Delete
    10. "legitimate" is in the eye of the vexatious litigants.

      Delete
    11. Adding ^^^ Windsor is pursuing these cases for notoriety. He figured out that to ditch the "movie" deal would yield him more recognition for his Revolution if he sued some big name companies, and 1000's of people across the US. Frivolous, malicious, meritless cases. He is on a mission.

      Delete
    12. @10:47: Uh no, legitimate is in the eyes of the law.

      Delete
    13. The " " Snoozan, you missed the " "'s
      It's you vexi's perceptions that's the problem, not the courts.

      Delete
  11. So we finally have the old gang back together!

    So Jim, now that you've retired, what are you up to?

    "spending time with the grandkids and fishing"

    Bob, how about you?

    "Sailing and I started my hand at painting!"

    Bill, what have you been up to?

    "Driving from state to state, alone, suing people and getting restraining orders"

    OH

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gee Bill, that doesn't sound like much of a way to spend your retirement...

    "Shut up or I'll sue you. Hey, enough of this stupid chatter, wanna see some hot vids on my laptop?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. @1:08 am: "I still think NBTD is a bully but calling her Besti, over and over again, make you no better then Bill W....."

    You are entitled to your opinion. Your logic eludes me, but carry on.

    ReplyDelete