Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Windsor Found Not Credible in Montana


http://supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/view/DA%2013-0618%20Noncite/Memorandum%20--%20Opinion?id={5B24CC86-9BAA-4E96-8863-187A822BB699}
Just a day after being slapped with the vexatious litigant tag in Texas, Bill suffered a humiliating defeat in Montana in his appeal for a temporary order of protection against Boushie.  The Montana Supreme Court issued a memorandum opinion which is not subject to case law (sorry Bill you wont be famous) in which they denied both of Bill's attempts for a TOP against Sean.

Bill had applied for a TOP in Ravilli County, and then once denied, he tried it in the City of Missoula, again being denied.  As we have chronicled, Bill's entire life is built on not taking no for an answer so he appealed it all the way up to the Montana Supreme Court.

The Court found that all of Bill's extravagant claims of cyber-stalking and being in fear of bodily harm were not supported by actual evidence or the facts.  Why would someone drive over a thousand miles and come in to close proximity of the person he claims is threatening his life?  Those are not the actions of a person who is in fear of his life, the Court found (they are calling him a liar basically).  "The District Court thus found that Windsor’s claim of reasonable apprehension of bodily injury “appears specious.”  Thats a fancy way of saying, you lied Bill.

Then they addressed the infamous car bursting on fire incident.  You know, the one where Bill was driving up to go stalk Boushie and the car in front of him burst in to flames, obviously, as Bill claimed, part of a murder attempt by Sean.  Bill quickly got out of his car and took some high quality no doubt copyrighted photos of the incident (again, if you thought you were being shot at why did you stop and get out of the car?)  One photo was submitted in court as "proof" of wild Bill's claims.  The Court addressed it by saying:  "Windsor submitted one of these photos; however, the District Court observed that “[t]he ‘photo’ of this incident submitted by Windsor is a virtually all black Rorschach blot, indecipherable, and contributes nothing of value, except to increase the Court’s skepticism of Windsor’s credibility.”  I hate to break it to you here Bill, but they are basically calling you a liar once again and a bad photographer.

As a parting gift, the Court gave Bill another blow to his other frivolous lawsuits all across the Country.  "There is no credible evidence that Boushie harassed, threatened, or intimidated Windsor.
Moreover, the offense of stalking does not apply to a constitutionally protected activity,
§ 45-5-220(2), MCA, and, as the District Court noted, the blogging alleged here involved
“First Amendment ‘free speech’ rights with which [Windsor and Boushie] each appear
familiar and in which they regularly engage.”
NOOOOOOO Court, you got it all wrong, only Bill's speech is protected by the First Amendment, everyone else is defamation, stalking, identity theft, libel and malicious fill in the blank...and any other words I come across that I can add.

You can find a good scouting report on vexatious Bill over here http://lifeinpiercecounty.com/

86 comments:

  1. Seems to me the courts are warming up to his non-sense

    ReplyDelete
  2. Between this ruling in MT and the ruling in the Texas court, Bill is having a very bad week. How long until we hear that they are all corrupt, and that he was denied as part of a plot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon11:28? it's the c word! Conspiracy!
      Gesh...

      ℗ ♛

      Delete
    2. Bill pegged me from the start I am a government worker involved in an elaborate scheme and conspiracy to stop the revolution. SMH

      Delete
    3. SOME OF YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SC MEMORANDUM IS CORRECT HOPPER. BUT SOME OF YOUR ERRORS MIGHT MISLEAD OTHERS, THEREFORE I OFFER THESE CORRECTIONS:

      "Just a day after being slapped with the vexatious litigant tag in Texas"

      WHAT DOES THAT MEAN "SLAPPED WITH THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT TAG IN TEXAS"? DID A TEXAS COURT DECLARE WINDSOR VEXATIOUS? THAT IS WHAT YOU INFER AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

      "The Montana Supreme Court issued a memorandum opinion which is not subject to case law"

      YOU HAVE THAT BACKWARDS. SC OPINIONS USUALLY CREAT A PRECIDENT. HERE THE SC IS SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT THE WINDSOR OPINION "shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent."

      "As a parting gift, the Court gave Bill another blow to his other frivolous lawsuits all across the Country. 'There is no credible evidence that Boushie harassed, threatened, or intimidated Windsor.'"

      THIS OPINION HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING ANYWHERE, EXCEPT FOR WINDSOR V. BOUSHIE. SO HOW IS THAT A GIFT?

      Moreover, the offense of stalking does not apply to a constitutionally protected activity,
      § 45-5-220(2), MCA, and, as the District Court noted, the blogging alleged here involved
      “First Amendment ‘free speech’ rights with which [Windsor and Boushie] each appear
      familiar and in which they regularly engage.”

      IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOUR READERS UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS LIMITATIONS AND THE SC DID NOT SAY OTHERWISE. ALL THE SC WAS SAYING IS THAT THE MT STALKING STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN WINDSOR V. BOUSHIE. A WAR OF WORDS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE STALKING IN ANY STATE.

      Delete
    4. Lest there be any doubt as to my view of the MT case...It was of course as meritless as the two TPO's argued in MO. It is staggering to watch these parties pursuing such nonsense.

      Delete
    5. Dear Mr. Cap Lock, I've found that whether your arguments hold any weight, when you use the caps you are looked upon as a ranter. and upon reading some of it, you apparently are. Step back and think, in your entire life whose opinion did you change by your rants?

      Delete
    6. Shut up Susan. Go crawl back into the sewer hole you crawl out of every night. You stink! And your a moron.

      Delete
    7. Ironically, I've known Bill probably the longest on this Blog, I should change my handle to seagull, drop in occasionally, shit on him a bit, then fly back in occasionally to do it again. Did you know 20 years ago his alum membership at his college fraternity, Sig Ep at Texas Tech, was his pride and joy he helped them with the website, he was an esteemed alum. Let me just say....they know better know. I know them all........and it's an ugly crew.

      Delete
    8. Bill, not the frat.

      No I'll take that back, his family and the frat are both wretched at this point, hope for the frat, not Bill or his family..

      SigEp's Three Cardinal Principles

      Virtue

      Standing aggressively for honesty in all walks of life. Speaking cleanly, playing cleanly, and living cleanly. Whenever possible, opposing lawlessness and vice.

      Diligence

      Striving to make anything of value worthy to others. Scorning difficulty and persevering to the accomplishments on one's tasks.

      Brotherly Love

      True friendships. Aiding a brother in times of need, whatever the circumstances.

      HAHAHA you prick!

      Delete
    9. I think Susan is too stupid to realize she just validated why Windsor was denied his TPO, but Boushie was awarded his. She is a little slow on the facts.

      Hey Snoozan, your little Willy is the one trying to get a TPO for stalking over the internet, not Boushie. The court explained to your little Willy what he believes to be stalking is not. However, when he loaded up his tank ass into the Jeep, and drove to MT- taking pictures and videos, he became a real stalker. Now please stop embarrassing yourself, and your little Willy.

      (your educational diatribe doesn't need be spewed. We got it. We know, it's you that seems to have issues following along)

      Delete
    10. Le Pew, no doubt the fraternity but did he attend classes and graduation? A couple different websites list the distinguished alumni of Texas Tech. A couple lawyers and judges named, but Bill is not listed for any of his supposed career fields.

      Delete
    11. IMO, Snoozan never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Last blog, I made the point the fact this site is open counters Windsor's assertion it's a "hate club." Snoozan quickly disavowed defending his position despite her claim of being "100% behind" Windsor. She talks about others owning sh*t? Ah huh...
      she owns all of hers all right---IN HER HEAD.

      Delete
    12. @Sluggo: "Snoozan quickly disavowed defending his position despite her claim of being "100% behind" Windsor."

      Um, I didn't disavow defending his position. I stated MY OWN VIEW of a particular subject. You then informed me that my view did not coincide with Willy's. I asked you why I would care about that.

      So please, tell me exactly where I defended his view of this blog as "private", only to turn around and disavow that defense.

      I was under the impression that you were one of the smarter posters here. I don't know why I thought that because you rarely post anything substantive. Now that I've seen you do more than make cartoons, I realize I gave you way more credit than you deserve.

      Delete
    13. Anon 12:06: "I think Susan is too stupid to realize she just validated why Windsor was denied his TPO, but Boushie was awarded his."

      I know exactly what I validated. I think you are too stupid to understand that there is something called objectivity. You see, the GENII are unable to separate what they WANT to be true from what IS true. I don't suffer from that problem.

      If Willy takes valid action, I say that it's valid. If he does something ridiculous, like the TPO appeal, I say that it was ridiculous. Obviously you did NOT get my educational diatribe, lol!

      @ Pepe': "Step back and think, in your entire life whose opinion did you change by your rants?"

      Where did I say I was trying to change any opinions on this blog? I believe I said, that THE HOPPER'S version of the MT order contained some inaccuracies and I provided a correction. The information is there. What people do with it is up to them and of no interest to me.

      Delete
    14. @Sluggo: "Snoozan quickly disavowed defending his position despite her claim of being "100% behind" Windsor." Please direct me to this alleged blanket endorsement of everything Windsor ever says, LMAO. Where did I ever say I was 100% behind all of his statements/actions?

      Delete
  3. I believe that cars "just burst into flames" in the movies vs. real life from being shot. Then, though just being a hairs breath from that car, bullets flying, going 65, he got his camera and took pictures, it must be a Matrix slow motion thing, and if he missed Bill, and hit the car to his right causing it to explode, I must also assume Rte. 90 near Butte is a 3 lane highway?? I think I'd be watching a gunman in the left lane verses the car in the right if that was the case. Since all the pictures on the web show a 2 lane highway maybe he was in a chopper or with a team of snipers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "REVISITED: A gas tank will explode when shot by a bullet. (From Episode 15)
      BUSTED
      It has already been proven that when shot by a normal bullet a gasoline tank will not explode. However, if a gasoline tank is shot by a tracer round from a great enough distance so that the round can ignite with air friction, it will cause the gasoline to catch fire. By the time this happened the tank was so riddled with bullets (from previous tracers that were fired too close to ignite) that there was no contained pressure, but the MythBusters surmised that had the tank been properly enclosed, it may have exploded; but overall it remains extremely improbable."

      Delete
    2. I'm loving the Court's word choice for Bill's story: Specious: falsely appearing to be fair, just, or right : appearing to be true but actually false

      Sorta sums up Lawless America doesnt it?

      Delete
    3. Conspiracies everywhereFebruary 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM

      Where's the police report? Bill witnessed a serious crime but didn't report it? Was he embarrassed that he had his flack jacket on?

      If there was a shred of truth he could have nailed Boushie on attempted murder, but no, he kept driving since the Jimmy's All You Can Eat Buffet in Butte was beckoning him and with a chocolate fountain and scrumptious pies, it was an easy decision.

      Delete
    4. And, are we sure the vehicle was actually on fire? I remember seeing the photo, I don't remember seeing any flames. And the color of the smoke caused me to wonder if the motor "blew up", which would be an internal mechanical failure.

      Delete
    5. NB,
      I may be wrong but this is the image (or at least one of them) he presented to the judge. It's just sad Billy didn't bother spending the extra $.25 on a full color print of his jpeg, but then again, he had other issues, eg, finding the gloryhole, learning to strap up his heavy flac-jacket, stalking Buschie's truck--for hours, accepting a TRO on camera and calling it the "perfect" ending to his visit,etc.

      Rorschach

      Delete
    6. Thx. No wonder the judges' questioned Bill's credibility. That is absolutely worthless.

      Delete
    7. There is an easy explanation for some above questions.
      1) He didn't stop to report a "crime" because there wasn't one and he knew it
      2) He didn't send in a color copy because it would show he was fabricating the whole thing.
      3) Pretty sure somewhere on this blog, was a comment that upon a quick phone call to highway patrol, it was deemed...a blown radiator.

      Now how can he present any of that factual stuff to the court that everyone here would expect, when he is so busy coloring everything gray and praying the Judges are blind.

      Delete
    8. Uh oh...I see a law suit in Kinko's future...for failure to up sell color copies to a certified vexatious litigant ...

      Delete
    9. yeah they lured him in to a business contract with their cute advertising only to set him up and make him look like a fool to the MT Supreme Court Judges. Its a conspiracy I tell's ya

      Delete
    10. Well, it's too bad Bill didn't think faster. The fastest way to kill a car with gun is to shoot it in the radiator. But then again, he would still be specious. Because, Bill made announcement after announcement on Talkshoe that he was manipulating search engines and his reported death threats always bumped his numbers way up.

      Delete
    11. The odds of a car overheating in the middle of summer vs the odds that the driver of the other car didn't file a report. Has Bill been asleep since 1963 for all the investigations of JFK? What was the trajectory of the bullet and where would Tiny have stood?

      Delete
    12. Does anyone believe Billy's been in touch with Thrash? I don't...unless of course Billy meant his Thrash--the magical, invisible, pocket hamster.

      Delete
    13. What is the name of the other driver and his insurance company? How much damage was assessed? So you get out of your car and take a picture of the shooter. Did you think to assist the driver or submit the photo to his insurance? Puhlease.

      Delete
    14. you expect Bill to actually help out another human being? Why break precedence?

      Delete
    15. LOL- it never occurred to Bill that had a car been damaged by being shot, the owner would have filed a police report. That level of detail has never been part of his stories, or as I tend to think of them, his fabrications and flights of fantasy.

      How did Billy make the leap to it having been a gun shot? He obviously thought enough about it at the time to take pictures. Funny, I don't stop and take pictures of cars that break down on the side of the road and immediately jump to the conclusion it was from a gunshot.

      Delete
    16. How did Billy make the leap to it having been a gun shot, you ask?

      When you're wearing a bullet-proof vest, what else could it have been?

      Delete
    17. Sluggo's Rorschach blot looks like an albino demon swimming across coral.

      Delete
    18. It's Billy's attempt at art; he inked up his vest and made a flak angel.

      Delete
  4. Scrub a dub dub...someone is cleaning all his boo boo's off the internet. Whatcha hiding Billy? It's too late for all that you know, but it will be perfect proof in court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill always had the right to remain silent, just not the ability

      Delete
    2. Bill can delete all he wants, unfortunately, 'the internet is forever' is a more accurate statement that he understands. Sorry Billy, but you put stuff out there all over the internet. Places you have since forgotten, or are out of your control.

      Delete
    3. than not that LOL

      Delete
  5. Conspiracies everywhereFebruary 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM

    It reminds me of one of those indisputable pictures of Big Foot. Is it a car? It looks like leaves with a figure standing in the middle

    I don't take great pictures, but that looks like a negative from a polaroid instant camera. It took nerve or dementia to bring that to court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Betcha it's a hunting photo.

      Delete
    2. I thought it was a "fishing" photo.

      Delete
    3. @ 3:35 - I thought it looks like a photo copy of a pic with Booshie and killing tools or something. But was afraid to say so. Being a Rorschach, I figure one of the trolls would diagnose me with a thing for Booshie.

      Delete
    4. I only see a penis in that Rorschach blot.

      Delete
    5. Take one of the many published hunting photos and go into photoshop lab. Choose two-tone effect.
      http://www.photoshoplab.com/easy-two-tone-silhouette.html

      Delete
  6. Is bill even sane enough to pass that ink blot test. Me might have a story for each blot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he'd want to film each one, and interview it too.

      Delete
    2. Anon? You're just begging to get sued, you know that, riiiiight? Don't dare point the absurdities & then giggle snort at them!

      ℗ ♛

      Delete
  7. more non credible non sense of bill winsor google gave him no ip addresses

    ReplyDelete
  8. As an occasional poster, and I guess, therefore stalker on this this board, I get confused on the scorecard and upcoming events. Who's getting sued or hit with a TOP next? Oops, popcorns ready, this has to be better than watching the Detroit Redwings this season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa, Mr. Cap Lock has joined the party, Top of the comments....

      Delete
    2. Looks like Bill is filing motions to add more people to his TX complaint. After the judge put his case on hold pending a letter from US District Judge Fitzwater. Meanwhile, somebody set Bill up with false information and the first some of these people will hear of him is when they figure out he is stalking them for posting on a blog they know nothing about.

      I'd stock up on popcorn, if I were you. And keep the beer iced down.

      Delete
    3. Problem is this.. His motions were never heard. So he did not get them added on officially. He is extorting them basically for information and to sign some affidavit of his. If he mailed them the documents with their names on it and some signed motion it is false presentment and that will equal contempt of court. I hope he did that. 30 days in the clink might make him think twice.

      Delete
    4. Windsor it Notorious for sending unsigned documents to people. That is why I would never ever believe anything without a judges signature from him. This to me is practice for his giving of Citizen Grand Jury Papers out to people in person.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, kinda shoots his argument that he is not a Sovcit in the foot.

      Delete
    6. @12:18: Problem is this. "He is extorting them basically for information and to sign some affidavit of his. If he mailed them the documents with their names on it and some signed motion it is false presentment and that will equal contempt of court. I hope he did that. 30 days in the clink might make him think twice."

      You don't understand the procedure Windsor is using. He is showing them the lawsuit that is currently filed, along with a motion he is PLANNING TO FILE to add them to the suit. He is then asking them to speak up if they have been named in error.

      Before adding them to the suit and possibly serving innocent people with a summons, he is giving them a chance to deny any involvement. This process has nothing to do with the injunction against him and he is not in contempt.

      On the contrary, he is making a good faith effort to confirm or deny identities before naming them in the suit. Given all of the supposed concern that has been shown on this blog for the poor, misidentified, innocent individuals, I would expect everyone here to applaud the fact that Windsor is going above and beyond his responsibility to confirm identities before adding them to the suit.

      Delete
    7. There is one problem with this reply. He filed the motions to add these people the 24th. They just haven't been signed by the judge. There was no good faith attempt, just an unsuccessful attempt to add them. The judge told Windsor he couldn't add anyone else until after he complied with Thrash's order. Of course Windsor had already rushed to file them with the clerk before the hearing.

      Delete
    8. Susan- Isn't this where you're supposed to show me how stupid I am by pointing out I don't understand what you said. I believe you said the motions he's PLANNING to file. But I'm sure I must have misread your statement. I'm sure I also didn't understand the motions listed as filed with the fees paid on the court website.

      Delete
    9. I knew I misread your statement. When you said motions he's PLANNING TO FILE, it means motions he's filed that he can take back. Once again you've shown me how bad my reading comprehension is. I guess I really should be applauding his compassion for those innocent people that he's offering to not file motions, oops I mean take back, adding them to a suit they have no knowledge of. Thanks for once again correcting my stupidity.

      Delete
    10. If it was so immaterial to your argument why did you feel the need to highlight it in ALL CAPS. I assume things like this are why you flunked out of law school. Blindly supporting an argument just because you want to align yourself against someone you dislike. You don't agree with your Willy you just want to disagree with people here. Before you argue a point you might want to insure you are up to date on the facts of that point. Thanks and have a great day.

      Delete
    11. But what you don't understand Susan is I'm always going to be ahead of you. I don't rely on trying to continually correct people to reaffirm my self worth. And if you try to claim that's not why you keep coming back here, you're either fooling yourself or you really need to self reflect and get to the root of your personal problems.

      Delete
    12. Ummm...

      Obsess much Robert?

      Have you even noticed that you've been talking to yourself all evening?

      I'm guessing "Susan" hit a nerve

      Delete
    13. Actually Susan had several comments mixed with mine. Unfortunately, her comments were deleted.

      Delete
    14. Susan's comments didn't survive the fumigation process

      Delete
  9. redwings all i know is michael tandino was killed in detroit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And he owed me money.........I'll find that mouthy prick, think he said his name was Johnny Wishbone in the crappy blue nova and straighten this out.

      Delete
    2. Right on. Someone Might find a banana in the tail pipe. Don’t except room service at hotels.

      Delete
  10. Bill thinks he can sue anyone who makes "false" statements about him.What about all those videos of "Congressional Testimony"? Did he investigate any of them for truth or accuracy? Were any of his "movie stars" angry, disgruntled litigants who can't accept the fact that they lost their children for very good reason? Is he aware that some of those videos were complete fabrication? It's very clear that he believes that false statements, when posted on the internet, can be very damaging. Isn't he responsible for what HE publishes? I think someone needs to sue him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone from liability if they knowingly make false statements without regard to any damage those statements cause. Calling those videos "Congressional Testimony" clearly implies, (or attempts to imply), to the reader, that all statements were made under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury. He published the videos with the intention of making the reader believe that the statements were true and accurate. I'm not an Attorney but I think the case could be made that he knowingly published false statements to promote himself without regard to innocent people. Some of whom were irreparably damaged .

      Delete
    2. Anon 4:50: There is no doubt that Windsor is liable for his own tortious conduct. The general belief is that he is judgment proof because he has hidden his assets. I don't think anyone has tried to find out if his assets are hidden, but if they are it would not be cost effective to sue him.

      Delete
  11. It does not look good for billy to take photos and harass someone who he does not know then mail them an unsigned motion. Then think it will all work out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I went to Ms. Emerson's "Life in Pierce County" site and the Windsor page on it. It's a nicely-structured introduction to our favorite vexatious litigant. Is it just my computer, though, or are all of the Google Docs pages that are linked in there broken?

    Without being able to see the (forgive the attorney-speak) exhibits that Ms. Emerson's text refers to, the presentation feels quite a bit weaker. Is a computer fix on its way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope...the links are broken for me too. I don't know Stacy directly but I've sent email to her friend to pass on.

      Delete
    2. On my computer (actually two different ones, with two different OSes and browsers), the links to docs.google.com work fine; it's just that when you get to the Google Docs pages, the document images are all broken.

      Delete
    3. the links work on mine, but I'm not smart enough to explain why

      Delete
    4. and they work on my mobile too

      Delete
    5. Stacy did a great job. She may not know but Bill has another title: Grand Jury Consultant. I've heard him say twice (DC video and on Talkshoe), as very few people get to address a Grand Jury but he has, he feels justified in adding that title to his business card.

      Delete
    6. I may be wrong but I don't think Windsor actually has addressed a Grand Jury. He's tried, but they wouldn't let him. I know his ex-pal, George McDermott did at least once (Spring 2012) as I recall. Billy also refers himself as a leading authority of judicial corruption.

      Where's Snoozan when you need her to edit his Wiki page? (Answer: on his side with 100% support...for now).

      Delete
    7. Yes Sluggo, you are wrong...again. Windsor did address a GJ, however they began asking him questions that led him to believe they were predisposed vote against him.

      Please direct me to where I said I am 100% on "his side"?

      Delete
    8. @Sluggo: "Where's Snoozan when you need her to edit his Wiki page?"

      What is it on the Wiki that needs to be edited? (Answer: Nothing).

      Delete
    9. As I recall Bill's telling of it, he ambushed a Grand Jury and hijacked the agenda. He said he was invited back to testify the next day. When he arrived the next day, he was not allowed access to the Grand Jury. He was escorted from the building.

      On Talkshoe he gave people all the little tricks and steps on how to sneak into a Grand Jury room. Does that make him a Grand Jury Consultant?

      Delete
    10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7fcVe2wy4

      Says he is a Grand Jury Consultant within 1 minute.

      Delete
    11. At about 1:23 Bill says he puts G/J Consultant on his e-mails

      http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-115884/TS-598530.mp3

      Delete
  13. I hear the dimitris in michigan has been somewhat reserved for a celebration party.

    ReplyDelete

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