Wednesday, April 23, 2014

National Liberty Alliance Cancels Again


Me the People's take back of their country has been derailed again.  John Darash told his followers Monday that the big showdown this Thrusday in a NY court has been cancelled because the judge responded to their charges with "no thanks, I don't play games".  They have no standing, they have no injured party, but that is news to them because they are not sitting down and they feel hurt. So just when you think they are at their Writs' end, they plan to file another one...a Writ of Error and felony rescue against this judge.  So once again....wash, rinse and repeat.  Darash told his followers that he is way to busy to read any emails, he just simply can't do it, and he has lost many emails that he didn't mean too by being liberal with his delete button. He has invested everything into this endeavor and is broke, sorry family....kinda let you down on that one.

Darash then moved on to the problem of the subverter's in his ranks.  Even though they are an anarchist group, he thinks everyone should follow his rules.  Ideas like giving up your driver's license or not voting is just asinine to him and the NLA.  Only his crazy idea shall be followed and all others are considered a waste of time and the work of "subverters"   Thou shalt not have any other frauds before me is the basic order Darash is striking down here.

51 comments:

  1. ROTF! - at their writs end. Too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh look - Bill lost 2 more lemmings to NLA, Judson Witham and Matthew Orames.

    https://www.facebook.com/nationallibertyalliance

    ReplyDelete
  3. webb your wrong. the fact of the matter is that the fbi has had bill and others he knows under the monitor for years. that is why they spoke to me. Bill makes claims about offering reciepts for donations to lawless america which he has said is a tax exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. no body should had called him a pediphile lover or all of those names. I do not agree with the name calling, i do not agree with having citizen grand juries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right Fleming, including Windsor himself. Windsor brings a lot of this stuff on himself, when he goes and proclaims things that were supposedly said about him, whether or not they actually were before he said it himself. Then of course people make fun of what he says.

      I have said it before, that I never saw anyone call him certain names prior to him making those statements, and the AMPP is a hate group video. Once he did that, especially the hate video-- you remember, the one where he specifically states "I am a..." all throughout the first part of the video? That was the stupidest thing he could have done. Then he continued to write repeatedly, those exact phrases.

      I believe he did that for publicity. He has written some disgusting stuff on his FB (which I will not quote because it was so disgusting) all of which no one would know about had he not have posted it himself. His lemmings have no clue what's going on, other than what he writes.

      Delete
    2. one of the reasons I would call him sexually deviant, besides emailing a bunch of strangers and asking them to tell him their stories of rape and incest, is that I would consider it deviant to even repeat some of these explicit things he is saying was said about him. Repeating, verbatim, sexually explicit statements is something I consider to be deviant in of itself. Unfortunately for Snoozy, Bill, Webb et all, this is still America, not their amerika and I have the right to have that opinion

      Delete
    3. I agree. Some of the things he has written himself (claiming someone else said them) would never be repeated by anyone with any type of morals. I mean, no *** to bleep out the word, nothing. Just bam. Not to mention, no references to his claims? Only him saying this was written?

      He said it before, the negative stuff has gotten him the most attention. But for him highlighting things he claims were written, no one would have known. There is something really sick about a person who airs certain content regardless of the reasons. Certain things should not have been aired, and kept private for his "evidence." But nope, he put it all out there, and now it's everywhere. So, my question is did he put it out there himself first? Based on his history, it is fair question. (rhetorical of course)

      Delete
    4. I must admit, while I didn't say it, I can't wait for him to announce in court to the judge that he has never sucked c*** and he doesn't have a tiny pee pee. The first I heard of these two, were in a very recent court filing by Windsor.

      That said, all these web pages he sites as defamatory to him, listed in filings, are absolutely defamatory. At least the 3 or 4 I visited. It will be interesting to see who built them, if we ever get that far. And wouldn't it be extra interesting if he built them himself or had Cox or someone build them on purpose? I don't know if that's the case, or if some people out there are extremely stupid. Either way, I can't wait to "get that far".

      Delete
    5. One big problem for Windsor, is that the majority of those websites he listed in his "evidence" is that they were made well after his AMPP hate video. See, he really screwed himself IMO when he publically claimed all that stuff. It created the hyperbole, mockery, sarcasm, and all the other opinionated (poor taste included) commentary. Don't believe it? Go see his video and check the dates on the websites. I didn't check them all, but the ones I did, he can't claim defamed him out of the blue.

      Delete
    6. Oh I agree with you, Windsor brought it on himself and I believe you about the dates. But court doesn't work that way, whether he's a public figure or not. Nothing HE has done will be considered as reason to build some of those sites. It will be 'did you build them or not".... not "did he deserve it". To make that work, he'd have to be the one being countered and so far I don't know that he is. I agree he can't claim he's been defamed out of the blue. But he can claim he's been defamed. The out of the blue part doesn't matter. In some cases, even with public figures. I do think his history and his actions will bear a huge weight against him, but in different instances. The judge isn't allowed to go, oh ya he deserved it, look what he wrote or did before this, heck, I'd of done that too, you're free to go. (Even though that's probably what the judge is thinking personally). That's all I was saying. That some of those sites are extremely over the top easily viewed as malicious defamation. And if he ever gets so far to get the builders in court, assuming it's not Bill himself, they may have a hard time explaining it.

      Delete
    7. First, those blogs are completely unrelated to this blog. It's been expressed that plenty of actions by certain "protective mothers" has been distasteful.

      However, what I think Ninja is saying is that a large majority of what Bill claims people said about him first originated from his own video where he starts out with "I am a pedophile." It's not about was he a meanie first and did he deserve it. I don't condone those blogs. I've had NO contact with anybody that I believe made those blogs. I think they are in very bad taste and very immature/gross.Buuuuut, from what I've seen Windsor is the original source and quoted party for several of the statements made on those blogs.

      Delete
    8. I think everything you just stated is beyond Allie's comprehension, sadly

      Delete
    9. " from what I've seen Windsor is the original source and quoted party for several of the statements made on those blogs." Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

      Delete
    10. Ditto - Ollie & Anon @ 12:18.

      It doesn't matter what Bill did/didn't do or said/didn't say, just because some one acts badly doesn't excuse anybody else from following suit.

      Delete
    11. No, actually I comprehend just fine, and agree with you. I thought I mentioned that. I just know that won't work in court, to get out of a defamation claim. (Provided Windsor got the builder in court and proved they did it)

      Delete
    12. Anon @4:00 actually none of that matters here, because the blog never said that, it was The AMPP people that said that and that is fact, the whole reason for the Video was aimed at AMPP, AMPP has nothing to do with this blog, so poof be gone, it's nuances like that, then your brain doesn't comprehend

      Delete
    13. Susan if that is you saying people should have watched more than 1 minute of the video I have a YouTube account and know that the average viewing time is available for that video. He would have to prove viewer
      Actually viewed past the time he said all if it was not true. Look if windsor states he's a pedophile lover 10 times I shut off the video I tell 20 others he admitted to that and whatever. His problem for saying those things on a social media source with such a small attention span

      Delete
    14. I can now honestly say, I am sick of lectures about laws and courts from a vexatious litigant and somebody with a frivolous defamation claim that has been pending for a year. It's a lot like an 8th grade drop out lecturing judiciary and law enforcement on their duties and the "nuances" of the Constitution. The irony is too much to bear.

      Delete
    15. again, the definition of deviant and pedophile are different, maybe snoozie you should look up those two words, so just because he was called deviant, doesn't mean he was called a pedophile, thanks for playing, silly nuances

      Delete
    16. nb you have been sick of hearing about anything you didn't already know for the past year.

      @anon 5:03: Try to pay attention. There were a few brief comments about deviant. Those comments have nothing to do with the comments about pedophiles, lmao.

      No one but YOU is confusing the posts on those two topics, lol.

      Delete
    17. "nb you have been sick of hearing about anything you didn't already know for the past year."

      No, I have been sick of you for a year. I don't have any patience for people that form an opinion and speak without knowing the facts. And you are one of the worst at thinking you have the ability to enlighten and inform anyone. But don't take it personally, I got tired of all Bill's ex lemmings more than a year ago.

      Delete
  5. oh reading the appeal he put in is fascinating: Bill is trying to say that The Fed. court in Dallas has no jursidiction over him, but interestly enough that was not an issue with other Fed courts that said he could file, also he stated there was a party that did get dismissed, interestingly, I don't recall anyone that is a party getting dismissed yet, only google which is a (non-party)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I never watched it all. Only the part where he called himself a pediphile and he looked serious to me. It's on him as far as I'm concerned from what I viewed he said that what he was. I am just telling what I heard him say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:34 your just slow or something I never repeated anything. That is what I heard him say for the brief time he said it. I don't have to defend that I seen 1 minute of a video of some guy telling people he was a pediphile lover then discussing it with whomever.

      Delete
    2. So Susan if I read you were a bisexual on a bathroom wall I can't tell anyone else?

      Delete
    3. But your analogy is not good because bill said it himself

      Delete
    4. that's a stupid analogy, just like the person who wrote it

      Delete
  7. Ok, snoozie since I know your to stupid to look information up,

    Here is definition of Deviant:

    de·vi·ant
    ˈdēvēənt/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.
    "deviant behavior"
    synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, atypical, anomalous, irregular, nonstandard; More
    antonyms: normal
    derogatory
    homosexual.
    noun
    noun: deviant; plural noun: deviants
    1.
    a deviant person or thing.
    synonyms: nonconformist, eccentric, maverick, individualist; More

    so, in the context of which the word deviant, was used that was the correct term, however no where in the article does it talk about pedophile

    here is the article, tell me where in that it speaks of pedophiles?

    "So Bill tried to co-op a real reporters story on rape and incest. Bill used it as an opportunity to seek out people to tell him their stories involving rape and incest. He can no longer be bothered by women with custody issues, but he is more than happy to hear a detailed sordid story of rape or incest. He sent out this plea:

    DO YOU HAVE A STORY OF SPOUSAL RAPE OR INCEST?

    I am communicating with a newspaper writer who is researching a story on spousal rape and incest. He is particularly interested in speaking with survivors whose abuse allegations were handledeither in criminal or family courts. If you would be interested in sharing your story, please email nobodies@att.net with the subject in all caps: RAPE.

    Well this started a fire-storm as one woman named Jan, rightfully gave the direct contact info to the real reporter doing the story, telling the lemmings to bypass the creepy old man trying to get in the middle. Bill then lashed out at her Lawless America Hey Jan, go away. You must be one of the sickos.
    Then her friend Lynn stuck up for her saying that she said nothing that was either on the order of a liar or a sicko. So bill then lashed out at her saying all kinds of sexist and delusional things, Bill asked for stories about rape, but instead he exposed himself as being a liar and a perverted fraud"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Snoozle and the others who want to defend Windsor's very tough road of "defamation" need to be ignored. It's not worth explaining to them. All the arguments they want to make to defend him, are actually working against him. Especially in the TX suit. He's barking up the wrong vexi tree and I think even he knows it now.

      They want to stir an empty pot and help Windsor make pie, and it aint gonna happen.

      Delete
    2. you are probually right, actually not probually, you are right I will cease to explain anymore "nuances" to her

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

      Delete
    4. Y'all both made good points. Silly nuances are for people that don't care about the facts. That specific comment discussed ^^^^ was mentioned only as an example, one of many, of how Bill hurts himself.

      "Anyone who saw him say it on the video could tell by the way he was saying it that he was not serious."

      Ah, no. I can honestly say the first time I heard those words was right out of Bill's mouth and I was shocked. I thought he was confessing. I listened to more to hear the whole confession. After I realized he was repeating an insult from someone else, I thought what an idiot to post that video. He should have found a better way to make his point because what he said was completely out of context and was likely to be misunderstood by others too.

      Delete
    5. also, we have to remember, that Bill, continously states that he NEVER LIES, and always tells the truth, so if you don't listen to the rest of it, then what else are you suppose to do

      Delete
    6. You do not deserve a response Snoozle.

      Delete
    7. And this opinion ^^^ is brought to you by a litigant that would know a "solid" and "meritorious" claim when she sees one. Kind of makes me wonder just what her win/loss ratio is on all of the "solid, meritorious claims" she's brought in legal actions and argued in front of someone that counts.

      Along with the stupid analogy re: McDonalds, also makes me wonder if she's trying to convince the people fighting off Bill's harassment to just throw up their hands and say "OK, Bill you win". Unless it's to harass and intimidate people, I can't see the value of saying he has a claim against everyone that every posted on this blog 1) she's an everyone that posted an unfavorable opinion of Bill, 2) if he can't make the argument, 3) her opinion is based on "nuances", not facts and 4) she ain't got a crystal ball.

      Delete
    8. You have to remember who you're dealing with. She's going to argue against any point you make just for the argument. You could say babies are cute and she'd somehow turn that into a colorable claim for Bill to sue you over.

      Delete
    9. I keep wondering when you're going to add Marty to your list of legal clients. You already have Bill and Webb. If you add Marty you'd have the big three!

      Delete
    10. Hahahah stay tuned!! For what? More epic losses of yours. Ok then! We'll all grab popcorn and watch!!

      Delete
    11. And a friend of Marty is.... well.... isn't much and probably won't be a friend for long when he doesn't pay you back the money he borrowed (at zero percent interest until he prevails with his RICO suit...)

      Delete
  8. Yunno, just because I think the above defenses are lame, doesn't mean I am defending Windsor, stirring a pot, agree with Susan, or believe Windsor will ever make it as far as it will take to "get to" the above scenarios. It just means I think the above defenses are lame. By all means, try them, if it gets to that part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, that's too funny - someone accused you of defending Bill. yeah, I recall being called a "ring bitch" and accused of defending Bill when I spoke out last summer against objectionable behavior directed at Bill. Yep, you and a whole bunch of ex lemmings jumped my case about it. Bill even recently posted your bestie's rebuttal to my comments.

      No, the difference is you are in court because of something you did that has nothing to do with the TX case, no matter how hard you and Bill try to make it so. Your legal opinion and providing legal advise to anyone for the TX case is just laughable at this point.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I love it. Redirect. I must have hit a nerve. Just how many cases have you lost vexi girl?

      Delete
    3. Or whoever 7:35 is, lol. I'm so confused!

      Delete
    4. Seriously, it's time for you to go yell boo at somebody else now. Clearly, you are out of rational arguments.

      Delete
  9. Y'all should really listen to this Darash, at least once. I listened to this in bits and pieces while doing other things, so didn't mark time of notable comments. Gingersnap is right, this is deja vu all over again. Only more serious and angry. And uneducated - Darash says he dropped out of school in the 8th grade.

    At around 1:25 a guy from IL says he got arrested for following the NLA instructions, he served 3 months of a 6 month sentence. None of the IL people want to move forward out of fear. Darash goes left on him, says they need new leadership in IL. Darash said that if they fail in their goals, the only thing left is lead. He says they need people, and more people and all the people should all file their papers at the same time.

    He says "they" are coming to get all Americans, "they" will kill all of the Christians and Jews. "They" will kill your children. Darash said the Nazi's are going to come marching down the street, there are 600,000 foreign troops in the US, over 300,000 Chinese soldiers here and they want your lead. That's what's going on with the cattle rancher in Nevada. He says that should scare everyone into doing something.

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/mondayrecording/14-04-21.mp3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you listen to him talk? Nope, I know you didn't. He is uneducated, that is my opinion based on several factors, which you are unprepared to discuss. You have absolutely no basis on which to judge, challenge and debate my opinion.

      Delete
    2. He has been listening to too much Info Wars, Glen Beck. Those people put out this information. People who follow NLA, and lawless America love conspiracies. Look, Bill believes in all these conspiracies. He is a conspiracy creator. It gathers the people who are just complete crackpots to put it nicely. They need a mental check. Bill makes himself seem really conspiracy like with his I have the idea that UM and SB is having a conspiracy with all the judges too. He just needs discovery to prove it all. LOL. No wonder why he's all alone. Gives him more time to try to derive up some conspiracy crockpot story that people are just flocking to and eating it up. Let him make his stupid movie and it will be a giant flop. It will be only on the internet and watched by some crazy conspiracy nutjobs.

      Delete
    3. I want my copy to Bills Tom Clancy Novel... "Lawless America, The Conspiracy."

      Delete
  10. NLA plan C is in play - new anticipated court take over date is 5/12.

    This is the order that canceled the 4/24 date.

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/14-04-18%20Decision%20Rescinded.pdf

    So NLA filed a writ of error and an indictment of the Judge that canceled the hearing.

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/14-04-23%20Writ%20of%20error.pdf

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/14-04-23%20Fraud%20on%20the%20Court.pdf


    BTW: in the 4/21 call Darash no signature and/or illegible signatures on the docs is because the courts don't need to know the names of the CLGJ or administrators. He's afraid of retaliation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I heard him specifically say they would use lead. Meaning 2nd amendment rights to use force.

    ReplyDelete