Tuesday, April 29, 2014

National Liberty Alliance Puts on its Tin Foil Hats


First lets cover our good ole Mary B.  Just like with her time in LA, she has worn out her welcome over at the NLA as her local Connecticut group simply can't tolerate any more of her rants.  So they voted to remove her.....ahh but by what authority can they do this?  Mary took to NLA's confusing message system at the bottom of the website to air her grievances.  John Darash even had to take a moment to chide the use of messages on the website as a distraction by "back biters".  Mary said this:

"I am going to find out the legal authority your web page had to go in and edit and delete my personal profile. what is the point of having a password if your admin simply goes in and alters what is written at random will. your actions have caused grave concern regarding your integrity and honor to support all of God's laws and people equitably and with the honor for which you speak but have not acted at all in this regard! Your biased discrimatory actions against me must find remedy from established leadership that is sorely lacking!"

I'm with Mary B....how can they?  This is the problem when you play children's games and then expect someone to reign people in when the get off the reservation.  Who are you to tell me my unicorn is any more far fetched than your magic dragon? 

Indeed, this is a bigger problem for Darash as he had to spend the first 30 mins of his show explaining how his group is different from the people trying to place liens against judges in the name of the universal commercial code or UCC.  You see that idea is just stupid, only made up citizen grand juries is legit, they have the youtube videos to prove it.

NLA is stuck in the mud at this point, they have not "constituted" any more states and it doesn't appear that any will be in the near future.  This is predictable as Darash missed his showdown with the court dates and now the infighting and finger pointing will commence. 

The interesting part of the show was how they brought out the trusty tin foil hats.  We heard about chemtrails, HAARP, and how smart meters are killing our bees.  Believe it or not, one of the key threads to being a member of the NLA is to be a deep seated conspiracy theorist.....show shocked face.  In the end, the NLA will become what Bill's suspended facebook page is now becoming, just a free advertising board for all these peoples crazy ideas.

187 comments:

  1. ROTF.

    "Who are you to tell me my unicorn is any more far fetched than your magic dragon?"

    That about sums it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm backing MaryB forever.
    How dare they?
    MaryB may indeed be wordy, BUT....she will tell it straight UP, loud & proud! She is a worker bee, too. Tsk, tsk, tsk...big mistake miffing my MaryB, huge mistake.
    MaryB? dump this. Go right back to doing it all on your own! You'll make more headway!

    ❥ ℗ ♛

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those people could use an experienced Regional Director...

      Delete
  3. NLA is e-mailing all the Sheriff's in the country. In a series of memos, NLA is "educating" the sheriffs on their duties and NLA's expectations when We The People take over the courts. Here's an excerpt from Memo 2:

    The only solution to save our Republic is for the People to stand up, constitute Common Law Juries, and return Justice to our courts. The People of the United States are just months away from completing that goal, and will continue to consider indictments on every officer of the court that resists the People from their rightful Heritage.

    Be fully advised that when We the People take back our house, and that day draws nigh, we will not tolerate the answer from any oath taker saying, “the Attorney General, county Attorney, or any other attorney told me so”, but our grace will rest upon all that we find doing their best to understand their duty and secure the Republic. We the People come with mercy but we will not tolerate continued ignorance that perpetuates America in jeopardy.

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/sheriff/02%20Memo%20to%20the%20Sheriff.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grace is an undeserved gift.

      At least they've got that going for them...

      Delete
    2. This message left me wondering about the mercy part. What exactly is the 'or else'?

      Delete
    3. I have been reading over there, and I wonder too NBTDT how far mercy goes before it gets to the in your face, I'm gonna arrest you too if you don't do what I say part. It sounds like the jails will be full of officers of the court. Some of the plan appears to be to do citizens arrests and turn people over to law enforcement. But if the LE doesn't agree(they haven't found one yet that will accept their 'prisoners') I'm not sure what happens.

      The turning over of these 'criminals' that they 'arrest' to law enforcement is supposed to prevent any kidnapping charges when they grab up the judges and court officers.

      And you better be willing to go on record stating you believe in their version of God and his laws too. The deeper I go into the forums, the more conspiracies and teachings I am finding.

      I had to back away for a bit. One thing for sure, there are some very serious believers. And you need to follow the rules and study the doctrine.

      Delete
  4. I have to say after reading todays motion from Bill Windsor to the federal Judge, Either he is acting stupid or he really is. It is hard to make that determination. I am certain that this judge will set him straight on the record. But, Bill has not just written letters to judges and whalla shazam they gave him the thumbs up to a go ahead. I would elaborate more here but, he is showing that he is trying to pull the wool over someone and I don't see it happening. What a complete laugh I have had this evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I have to say after reading todays [sic] motion from Bill Windsor to the federal Judge"

      Which one?

      Delete
    2. No shit, which one? Pick a motion, any motion. (holding a deck of motions in my hand) The one that made ME crack up the most was the Motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider. Being sued is not funny, but ya gotta laugh reading THAT.

      .....Allie Gate

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I don't care who you are, that right there was funny.

      Delete
    4. Clearly I'm behind in my reading. Which case has he filed this stuff in?

      Delete
    5. Bill firmly believes if you say it enough times in enough ways it will become true to someone besides him. He is stuck in a loop and can't stop himself.

      He really needs something new to say, it's becoming clear he is spinning.

      Delete
    6. What he filed today is as if he cracked his head on the sidewalk and well all of that stuff. Seriously funny.

      Delete
    7. @ Attorney: Bill filed a Writ of Mandamus in the 5th Circuit Court, New Orleans. All the docs except were posted as of yesterday. And Bill filed a petition to reconsider an order from Judge Solis in Dallas to pay a $46 filing fee before Judge Solis will consider his request for leave in the Ellis Co case.

      Bill also filed a kazillion motions in the MO case.

      Delete
    8. sorry - the opinion from 5th Circuit was not posted yesterday, last time I looked.

      Delete
    9. Whatever, if he doesn’t like the system what will he do, get rid of them using a grand jury and give them the death penalty for being a traitor. He already declared then enemies of the state. Id tell him to move to canada.

      Delete
    10. NB,

      You mean this one?

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_FlsKyRGs96N0drT0RGakF5TFU/edit?usp=sharing

      Delete
    11. Motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider...with exhibits.
      (Gosh...I hope the judge wasn't expecting the CD to be copied (not Xeroxed as provided) :-)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_FlsKyRGs96WTFjLUQwWHYzbkU/edit?usp=sharing

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_FlsKyRGs96RGJFYXRmMmdNWEk/edit?usp=sharing

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_FlsKyRGs96aG9uZDBXdUdKcTA/edit?usp=sharing

      Delete
    12. @ 9:52 - yeah, that one. Is the opinion posted yet?

      Delete
    13. NB,

      I could be wrong, but I think the opinion was a single and sufficient word: DENIED.

      Delete
    14. I think that's the order. The opinion will explain why the order says denied.

      Delete
    15. You are right, the opinion is obvious. I just can't wait to hear the why they hold that opinion. Curiosity is killing me.

      Delete
    16. NB, Kindly re-read the cover page--it clearly indicates the second page IS the OPINION--Writ DENIED--that's it.

      Delete
    17. I would LOVE to read that too, but they don't need to publish one.

      Delete
    18. I thought I read in Pacer that the order was sent to Windsor & Solis with their opinion.

      Delete
    19. Now we know why they call Nawlins the BIG EASY...DENIED! :-)

      Delete
    20. Again, the cover letter tells all--look at the inside address (above the salutation).

      Delete
    21. But I feel a motion for reconsideration coming on...

      Delete
    22. @ 10:45 - you could be absolutely correct. I'm too tired right now to figure out what made me think something else is coming. That does not negate the fact that I want to hear the reasoning behind the decision.

      Delete
    23. I agree with you NB--It would be nice to read between the lines, but on the other hand, it's probably a good sign we need only to read between the letters---D-E-N-I-E-D...the feds are probably as sick of dealing with Butthurt Billy as we are.

      Delete
    24. Anyone else think that Snoozie's particular interest in Windsor's motions were more personal? Like perhaps she helped him write some of that moronic crap? He seems a bit confused about what he filed before and if she is helping him she's not helping him. LMAO!!

      Delete
    25. I'd like to know why he's taking to swapping last names for initials?

      That's about all that's new...

      Delete
    26. Well, they better figure it out. He's got, what 43 or 44 more states to practice in. Without creating bad law. That was what happened to Ferguson, IMO. The judiciary was pushed over the ledge by the games Jeff Baron played. Ferguson did the only thing that made sense to stop the madness once and for all, again IMO. I support what Ferguson did and why he did it, but I'm not sure it was constitutional.

      Delete
    27. OK - I think I'm up to speed this AM. It was the cover letter written on 4/25 with the order that caused me to think an opinion was forthcoming. It says a copy of the judgement and a copy of the opinion were enclosed.

      However, there was a letter written by the clerk on 4/24 that I overlooked the first time through the file. Sorry that I'm not as IT advanced as Anon with the doc links - I copied the contents of the letter below. It appears the appeal was tossed due to procedural error.

      April 24, 2014

      Mr. William M. Windsor
      P. O. Box 150325
      Dallas, TX 75315

      No. 14 - 10498 In re: William Windsor
      USDC No. 3:14-MC-45

      Dear Sir:
      We have docketed the petition for writ of mandamus, and ask you to use the case number above in future inquiries.

      Filings in this court are governed strictly by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We cannot accept motions submitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We can address only those documents the court directs you to file, or proper motions filed in support of the appeal. See FED R. APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 27 for guidance. Documents not authorized by these rules will not be acknowledged or acted upon.
      Sincerely,

      LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

      Delete
    28. 5TH CIR. R. 27 starts on page 24

      http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/clerk/docs/5thcir-iop.pdf

      Delete
    29. NB, Thanks for posting. Once again, flawless Bill is proved by the court to be lawless Bill!

      Delete
  5. I guess Snoozan doesn't want NLA to think she is a troll. I don't think they care. I don't think I'm confused about what constitutes a troll.


    I, Susan Harbison, am the one that sent "sofa" an email to show her an article that appeared on the Joey blog that day. Apparently my email intro was not very clear. I highlighted the text of the full article but obviously she still thought I was the author of the article.

    FYI, the actual article that appears on Joey begins with the words, "John Darash and his domestic terrorist group, National Liberty Alliance...". The idiots on the Joey blog seem very confused about what constitutes domestic terrorism, lol.

    I support the NLA, as I support all reform groups. I don't agree with some aspects of your group, therefore I do not participate here.

    Good luck to all of you!

    Submitted by sbharbison on Tue, 04/29/2014 - 21:04



    Flip flopping...
    zahraaliel51's picture

    I do not believe that National Liberty Alliance is another Lawless America Flop..."We the People are the ones that have the power to keep this grassroots organization going, and if we are all on the same page it will happen with divine intervention...so let's just stay strong and keep going to realize our goals to restore the Republic here in America...we do not have time for jealousy, backbiting and/or underhanded undermining..let''s all keep our prayers in do the work with love and get it done!...the tool of the Devil is for you to become discouraged in the mist of your endeavors...The Most High did not give us the spirit of fear...He gave us Power, Love and a sound mind...so let's use our powers collectively and make it happen...never give up or in! Peace and love everyone!

    Submitted by zahraaliel51 on Tue, 04/29/2014 - 22:54

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I don't agree with some aspects of your group, therefore I do not participate here."

      Logic would dictate if her statement is true, then the complement would be true, ie, if she agrees with the group, she would participate. But she participates (or tries to) on Joey. Is she confused or illogical (or both)?

      Delete
    2. ↑↑↑↑-TROLL ALERT-↑↑↑↑

      Delete
    3. (You should add "Illiterate" to your alert...snoozan can't read either).

      Delete
    4. Puhleeeease, Susan! Really? You'd participate anywhere, anytime, at anything IF anyone would allow you!!

      Delete
    5. NOTE-- The troll alert above was in reference to a post after the post at 11:36 (ie, the troll's reply was deleted by Admin). Thank you Admin!

      Delete
    6. Since the troll loves to antagonize she should explain to the group why she cannot practice law.

      Delete
    7. Seems the problem with all these SC/Vexi type personalities, are their extreme narcissistic tendencies. They simply can not fathom they are wrong, their "complaints" aren't valid, and no amount of frivolous filings will change that fact. They all should pick up their toys and go home. No one in the real world wants to play their games.

      Delete
  6. Motion to sever.....now THAT'S an interesting pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mary B is still at it. I thought there was maybe a romance blooming between Mary & Joe Kelly. But, no. They are too verbose for each other, I think.

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/1085#comment-1085

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/1086#comment-1086

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to make note. It appears to be Lawless America Redux with the Men Vs. Women deal coming up again. Mary saying they are against women. Will the "P" word be used soon?

      Delete
    2. I don't think Mary is in the "P" word group. It appears to me she is railing against what she views as attempts to dominate and/or minimize her. But that's the nature of the beast, not really a gender bias. Even if there is a gender bias, she is not obligated to be affected by it.

      Delete
    3. MaryB is fierce. Heaven help the iDot that dares to use the P word at her!

      Delete
  8. amazing bill wants to sue sid wallingford gray his ex wives sister in law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who?
      You know what? I doubt it matters...they can sit by me, for today. Bob'll scootch over & it'll be ok.
      Welcome new person.

      ℗ ♛

      Delete
    2. That's because he's a vindictive prick. He uses the court to harass people. He's been angry with her ever since he said the Government put a "hit" out on his life, and she told Barbara to take the cat and leave. Look how long this has been festering inside that miserable, grumpy, hate-filled carcass, posing as an innocent little ol' grandpa, who will attack at will if given the chance. SMH at the apathy of some people in that family.

      Delete
    3. He's talented. 'Upon information and belief', he can act like a vindictive prick while filing docs at a hundred miles an hour. Yay Windsor does have a talent.

      Btw, the things I'm having to answer for court are, well, ummm, here.....

      He wants me to admit that he's never had sex with animals and that I tried to get in his room in DC (worded as though I wanted sex). Now add 900+ more of the same caliper. Glad I type fast.

      Delete
    4. Ok, this "sex with animals" thing is just sick. HE is the only one who said that. If he said he read the blog, then he also read numerous times people explaining to the senile old fart what the term "lot lizard" actually means. Not one person ever said he had sex with animals. What would make his mind "go there?" I think this is actually a great piece of evidence against him, making up "evidence."

      Delete
    5. I would like to know how someone can claim they have been "defamed" when they haven't actually seen the defamation if they have to say "Upon information and belief."

      Where did he get his "information?" How can he "believe" something he hasn't actually seen? Is this just a clever way to get around actual proof and evidence and invade people's lives while still digging for stuff for his case? Here, lets "build a case" as we go, instead of having a "colorable" claim with "merit" first. Yep, sounds right to me. *eye roll*

      I'd say it might be worth an objection- as he states "upon information and belief" that isn't a strong enough reason to force someone to turn everything over in the first place. "I suspect," " I have no real proof," "I hope you allow me to be invasive and harass people for no good cause Judge," "I am showing exactly why I am a Vexatious litigant but I hope the waving around of my frivolous papers distracts you..." etc. SMH

      Delete
    6. Meh, it's just his exaggerated spin. Somebody at some point said something about a lot lizzard, he got mad, and poof, he claims they said he has sex with animals. I said he bragged about having a gun, buying it for his haters, and named me and a group as haters, then said he was on his way here. He got mad and poof, he claims I said he is a mass murderer. Boushie sent him three Montana law statutes about protecting himself if Windsor went to his home. He got mad and poof, he claims they were death threats. He insisted I kiss his cheek for a photo op, then he got mad and poof, he claims I wanted in his shortpants. Histrionic PD comes to mind.

      Delete
    7. @ 10:37, Ya I agree. AND it's standard lingo in court, the 'upon information and belief'. Civil court is waaaay different than criminal court. He doesn't need to prove much really. As for his digging, I answered his admissions but of course he won't be satisfied with my answers.

      Delete
    8. On page 147 of Windsor's 372-page affidavit:

      ¶350. On April 11, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Sean Boushie cyberstalked me and issued what I consider to be another veiled threat. joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHWTfFV3Vc

      It's a professionally produced ad for Glock, Inc--a young women preps herself for an imminent home invasion. How can a reasonable person see this video as a veiled threat?

      Delete
    9. He he he…. I love that one…

      Delete
    10. This is what is wrong with the Judicial system. Here, we have a man, who in my opinion is not right in the head. He can simply spin anything into some kind of "threat" or complaint for which he files some moronic law suit. I really hope he has to compensate each and every party he has harassed by paying not only their attorney fees (if they hired an attorney) but also compensation for their time, emotional distress and any other fees the court deems appropriate for his harassment. Because that is all this boils down to. Harassment from a man who can't handle "life".

      Delete
    11. The "bump" makes me laugh every time.

      Delete
    12. The bump on his "little" head??

      Delete
  9. And to each and every person who has posted on the Joeyisalittlekid website, I suggest that you read the Texas case law on defamation as a whole, conspiracy, and joint and several liability. I seek to hold each of you liable for what you all did as a gang with your published statements on Joeyisalittlekid's website.

    William M. Windsor

    I love conspiracies. That is why Barbara and William will be found out to be working together with all of the lawless america revolutionary clan which is responsible for inspiring South Dakota residents to hold citizens grand juries. To facilitate packages sent to congress and senate members with packages containing threats of citizen grand juries and to be scentenced with treason if they don't comply with demands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 2:41,

      Do you have a screen dump image with date of this (Windsor's) post?

      Thanks!

      Delete
    2. It's at the bottom of this smear piece on his own (now-ex) relative - http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1388:is-this-the-face-of-a-millionaire-joey-who-has-defamed-william-m-windsor&catid=139:joeyisalittlekid

      Delete
    3. Thank you!

      Delete
  10. After reading his own words about his 'haters', some his former followers & volunteers? After months of knowing the actual version of some events as they happened, then reading his spin of those? There is not one shred of doubt in my mind that William Michael Windsor is beyond evil, vindictive, hate filled and devious.
    I simply cannot imagine what life must have been like in a home with him as a father and husband.
    My small unpleasant experience dealing with him from a distance has made me feel such sympathy for his now ex-wife, his children & grandchildren. I can see why his family had no choice but to cut him out of their lives! He is toxic, in every nuance of the word.
    TOXIC.
    His own toxicity is what will be his demise and what he will ultimately be 'known' for. It will not be for being vexatious, an idiot, a liar, a fraud, a scam artist, or a failure at every venture in his long lifetime.
    It will be that same toxicity that is his un-doing.
    And? it is my opinion that it is currently devouring him at an accelerated rate.
    It's an ugly scene, yet very fitting.
    I've seen firsthand the absolute delight Windsor has taken in attempting to hurt and damage people that never even knew he existed.
    Knowing he is broken, teetering on the edge of sanity, grasping at any morsel of attention and failing at every endeavor he attempts? Doesn't give me any joy. But, it most certainly does restore in me the belief in "reaping what is sown".
    Windsor will never be remembered for attempting to be an 'activist' or a 'journalist' or a 'documentary film maker' or a 'leader of a revolution'.
    If, just if, he is even remembered at all? It will be for being nothing more than a nuisance. In every nuance of that word.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmm how can windsor dispute a copy of the originating document that says Barbara was the director.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we are at the point where he will contest his own name

      Delete
    2. LMAO!!! flash to courtroom...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA

      Delete
    3. Ninja! ☺☺☺☺

      Back at ya...

      Joeys v. Snoozan:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

      Delete
    4. Hahaha!! Good one Anon!

      Delete
    5. You're so vain, the joke's on you. No one wasted time making a video of you; the video was an old Monty Python skit.

      Delete
    6. Note: 11:53 post referenced an earlier troll post which has been deleted.

      Delete
  12. My mission is to stop the William Windsor revolutionary party aka lawless america association a political group from taking thier country back charging politicians with treason and assuming offices since they will never get elected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a bizarre and self-contradictory statement, Sean; please try again.

      Delete
    2. Comma's, the difference between ''Let's eat, Grandma'' and ''Let's eat Grandma''.


      --------Allie Gate

      Delete
    3. What are you sayin'? You wanna make Sean a comma chameleon?

      Delete
    4. Great. Now I will singing that the rest of the night.

      Delete
    5. Boy George is BACK!

      Delete
  13. So, I was checking in on some of people that gave 'testimony' for Bill. People whose names have not seen on Bill's FB page in long time, if ever. I found two examples in which the system worked like it is supposed to. In all of the videos I've watched, Bill led people, and some times insisted they discuss graphic details of a horrible event. But in these 2 cases Bill completely overlooked the successful outcome of legitimate complaints of corruption.

    Deanna Fogarty: her complaint is with the CA department of CPS. In a contentious divorce, there was an accusation that Deanna was working to alienate her children from their father. Deanna was investigated. She took exception to the way her case was handled, but not the investigation. A social worker took a personal disliking to Deanna and removed the kids from Deanna's custody. Deanna was separated from her children for 6 years. She sued the state, the social worker and the worker's supervisor. Deanna offered to settle the case for $500k. The state refused. After a trial in 2007, she won a $4.9 million judgment. The state appealed and lost, appealed again and lost. With interest, the judgment is now more than $10.6 million.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivprh_i1Pvg

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/12/prweb4919724.htm

    http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/strong-478516-county-million.html


    On this one - there is a split decision. The system worked in catching and punishing a judge in PA for taking kickbacks in exchange for sending kids to a new detention center (aka Kids-For-Cash scandal).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ciavarella

    Sandy Fonzo: she is a party in a class action civil suit as a result of her son's suicide, which she blames completely on Judge Ciavarella. In her 'testimony', she does not disclose that the reason her son was sent before Judge Ciavarella. The boy's dad thought the boy had a defective friend picker. On the advise of his friends, the dad planted drug paraphernalia in the boy's truck, then called to report the boy to the cops. The thinking was a 'scared straight' kind of thing.

    The crooked judge sentenced the boy to 30 days in detention, then 6 months in a boot camp. The boy lost his senior year in high school and his hopes for a college wrestling scholarship. Sandy claims the boy had developed anger issues. After he was released from boot camp, he got drunk and beat a guy up. His probation was revoked, he did more time. At the time of his death he was facing assault charges again for beating up 3 people.

    I understand her anger, but it's misdirected, IMO. If not for the dad's parenting skills, the boy would not been subject to the crooked judge. And if the boy had a dad he could trust, maybe he wouldn't have been so angry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWrYzHn9PS4

    http://citizensvoice.com/news/father-of-suicidal-man-in-kids-for-cash-case-i-basically-framed-him-1.1109065

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just wait for the landmark RICO case of Marty Prehn vs Colorado Springs, et al.

      Delete
    2. Maybe this woman can help him with research.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRGNIOQ4XRw

      Delete
    3. Nah. Marty is friends with the greatest legal minds this country has to offer, provided they take Walmart gift cards.

      Delete
    4. Maybe that lady should use some of her 10 million to fund Bill's movie. Help out all her fellow victims.

      Delete
    5. @ RC3 - I wondered why he didn't hit her up for funding. The last appeal was decided right around the time he did the video. I figured since Bill didn't have time to vet the stories, maybe he was unaware of the judgment. Or, maybe he did ask and she said no. She doesn't seem to be the revolution type, she just wants CPS reform.

      Delete
  14. Oh look, Marty the Elder Avenger is joining up with the militia movement in his area. Marty popped up first on this guy's friend list. The thought is so ridiculous, it's rendered me speechless. Some other LA refugees are on the list too.

    https://www.facebook.com/boris.tiraspolsky/friends

    Boris Tiraspolsky
    3 hours ago
    My dear Facebook Friends,

    Please, be advised that I am in a process of forming three brigades of Militia in the State of Michigan as an integral part of the future U.S. Strategic Intelligence and mobilization of our Nation for withstanding imminent invasion of Russian military forces in the territory of the United States of America.

    1. George Washington Brigade

    2. Benjamin Franklin Brigade

    3. Arthur Bean Brigade

    Due to a non-existence of any REGULATIONS for Militia in the United States, I kindly ask an appropriate Committee of the U.S. Congress to initiate a necessary procedure to establish a such REGULATIONS, according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    Thank you.

    Boris Tiraspolsky,
    Commander

    Oath of Affirmation

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully perform duties of a well regulated Militia necessary for the Security of a free State, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marty is terrified of his landlord's girlfriend.

      How's he to confront the Red Menace?

      Delete
    2. Marty in the militia is every bit as ridiculous as a guy named Boris Tiraspolsky fighting against the Russians.

      Delete
    3. The more you look at that friends list, the more strange it gets. Larry Klayman is also rubbing elbows with Boris, along with a whole bunch of people like these, who appear to be Russian.

      https://www.facebook.com/victorkudrin?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab

      https://www.facebook.com/margarita.svobodina?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab

      https://www.facebook.com/leonid.tiraspolsky?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab

      https://www.facebook.com/leonard.storch?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab

      Delete
    4. That's some scary sh*t right there.

      Delete
    5. Indeed. Very scary snit!
      MongMoose & militia? bawahahahahaha bahahahaha hiccup, snort!

      Delete
    6. This guy is forming an army militia to fight the supposed Russian armies here. He's watching too much info wars same as the Nla guy

      Delete
    7. ya, if we fight Russia, it won't be Armies but, Nukes

      Delete
  15. For your viewing it's still for sale http://youtu.be/f78hw0s2h2w

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's another LA lemming that has hooked up with NLA, Cheryl Kennedy. I found this at the end of a 'everybody is crooked' rant.


    All members of Congress and countless other crooks must be marched out now, that includes President Obama. Everyone thinks this a joke but no one is laughing and the same bozo the clown stooge show continues. The DEFAULT should begin NOW, for the protection of this American Republic & the American People!

    Otherwise, the American people need to seriously prepare to BEAR ARMS. I’m done with anyone in Government who wants to violate my rights or any other Americans rights. I will not stand for it another day, do you hear me U.S. Military? Someone better start taking authority or the American people need too!

    http://areyouawaremedia.com/category/attorney-eileen-avila/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's interesting (and a little chilling) to see folks like these go off the deep end and start ranting about the Second Amendment and the military and whatnot. Thankfully there really aren't all that many of such folks, and presumably many/most of them are blowing smoke.

      If I, personally, were to similarly fall off a cliff psychologically and decide to take "revolutionary" action against the government, I think it'd end up looking a fair amount like what Bill Windsor did, say, around 2012 or so--file a bunch of probably doomed lawsuits against government officials. I'd do a better job of it than Windsor has, though. Which is not to say that I'd be any more effective.

      Delete
    2. Yea I think that's the thing. On one hand, these people are walking jokes. But then on the other, they are abusing a privilege we have as Americans

      Delete
    3. You could fit all of the remaining lemmings in one room. There, they can start their own country.

      I understand Marty's ex landlord might have such a room available...

      Delete
  17. Here is a document. Interesting Windsor had 1st communications until 2001 with the vert same company. http://www.state.ct.us/OTT/pressreleases/press2001/pr051101.PDF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh, interesting. Windbag is nervous in my opinion.

      Delete
  18. Oh, the lemmings are running amok on FB while Bill is banished. This one is irritating.

    Gloria Johnson THIS IS HOW THE POLICE ARE TRAINED SHOOT TO KILL

    Yep. Law enforcement officers are taught to aim for center mass. If they have to pull out their weapons, they are in a 'it's them or me' situation. I have no problem with cops protecting their own lives. The way the posted article reads, it appears this was a classic case of attempted suicide by cop. Except the boy didn't die, he was certainly worse off than before the shooting, so he sued.

    I hope Gloria also knows that every officer involved shooting goes to a grand jury to review for criminal charges against the cops. A grand jury failed to indict these officers. And it appears that the officers unsuccessfully employed non lethal force to stop the boy before they shot him. I am curious as to why the city and their insurance carrier settled rather than tried the case. IMO, there is not enough info in the article to conclude the officers did any thing wrong.

    http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131203-north-kingstown-to-pay-7-million-to-settle-lawsuit-over-police-shooting-teen-9-times.ece

    ReplyDelete
  19. Replies
    1. ...Of what?

      P.S.: Sean, catching up a little on Windsor's filings in the Texas federal courts, I see that a lawyer representing you filed a very nice motion opposing Windsor being authorized to file lawsuits in Texas. She did a very nice job; kudos!

      Delete
    2. This is the first time someone caught it before he got the give go so the whole picture could be taken into consideration.

      Delete
    3. Yeah Sean's attorney is all over Bill. Its almost too bad the Ellis case is going no where because she has him teed up with a great case for Anti-Slapp

      Delete
    4. You know he wrote an interesting post on his site lawlessamerica.com today. I can't comment much about it. but it concerned the entire blog. What I can say is that it has to do with Trish Kraus. I am not spending any time proving anything unless were in court, I am not sure who has to prove what but I believe he has to prove he is defamed etc. anyhow, The way he told that Texas Judge what he did I can not wait to see the outcome.

      Delete
    5. There is something really wrong in Windsor's head. For him to spend that amount of time writing articles that are nothing but his delusions and spins on the truth is laughable. Clearly he hasn't read the blog, otherwise he'd just STFU right about now. Those questions he wants answered are nothing but harassment. All the proof has already been posted on the blog, so he's got his answers, he just doesn't like them. Seems like he only wants to pretend he's got any cases, on his Windsor Court dot com's. If he keeps writing that garbage he must think it will change the truth. But no. It won't. Barbara must be a touch miffed right about now for Windsor to be so stupidly asking stuff he knows you've got Sean.

      Delete
    6. Isn't it written in the divorce decree that he's not allowed to call her by name online? I'm sure court docs would be excused but court docs copied and published on his websites for drama? I don't know Babs, and I sure don't know why or how their divorce happened, but damn I feel for that chickie. Hey Barbara, call me, I will show ya what he's now decided to add to his lawsuit against me pertaining to allegations that caused your divorce. I will be happy (ecstatic) to set the record straight for you and your family in private.

      Delete
    7. Yea I think you are exactly right on that. He is not to use her name online in anything. If he posts his own stupid questions that uses her name that's a violation

      Delete
    8. His eyes must of went fuzzy while he read that part.

      Delete
    9. It'd tickle my funny bones IF the ex-MrsWindsor would/could retain Flemming's attorney to smack her loser ex-husband for violating orders in their divorce decree!
      #sweetdream
      #bitchslappedBill

      Delete
    10. http://i60.tinypic.com/29c9ixc.jpg

      Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to consider the intrinsic evidence presented here--not what Mr. Windsor wants you to see, but what Mr. Windsor has left out, and more importantly, the reason WHY he chose to crop this image so tightly. I submit to you it was a deliberate and intentional act to hide the truth from you. The sad inescapable truth is, Mr. Windsor's right hand was on this young woman's right buttock, and that's about as red-handed and inculpating as it gets.

      *Intrinsic Evidence

      Information necessary for the determination of an issue in a lawsuit that is gleaned from the provisions of a document itself, as opposed to testimony from a witness or the terms of other writings that have not been admitted by the court for consideration by the trier of fact.

      [West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.]

      Delete
    11. Article XXII--Mutual Respect (divorce papers)

      ...."The Husband shall not mention the wife, or any other family members by name or inference without the express permission of that person, on his website or facebook page...."

      Delete
    12. "Tammy was clearly sitting on the giant arm of the sofa. Her butt never touched my lap" Well hot damn, that bitch has some long ass legs to go all the way from the arm of a couch, in between Bill's legs. See, you only see one of his legs. Now why would that be if she isn't sitting in his lap? Where are both of his legs, and why is her skirt draped over his lap? (Not to mention the real unedited photos show the truth that Windsor's crop job couldn't hide.)

      Delete
    13. OMG! Does anyone else smell fish? That would be the enormous RED HERRING Billy posted to go along with the image above. It's not WHERE her butt was--it's WHERE *HIS* right hand was!

      Delete
    14. Like Sluggo wrote...Gun & Bun.

      http://i57.tinypic.com/2j29o4x.jpg

      Delete
    15. Can Bill prove that Barbara was not the director at incorporation and where are those minutes he was talking about. Will he produce them?

      Delete
    16. Lololol....sometimes I wish there was a like button here. The original pic got buried and I haven't seen it in a long time.

      Delete
    17. Sean, Bill doesn't have to prove she was or wasn't, unless you sue him with that claim in the petition.

      Delete
    18. Allie, I believe Windsor has been asked for this information in some special exceptions .He does have to prove it (or answer very similar questions) once he gets leave. Probably why he wasn't so excited to pay his 46.00. He can't simply file a suit and not have to answer valid questions first.

      Delete
    19. I don't have to prove she was either. He will have to prove she wasn't if that is his claim against me.

      Delete
    20. you do knot allie he is saying you too have interfered with a business tort. Ever wonder what company?

      Delete
    21. I agree, Anon, and that's especially true for a "fact pleading" state such as Texas.

      Delete
    22. I see, if it's Tx or Ks I don't keep up. I know in the MO claim and in general suits, (without whatever you reference) the burden flops back and forth. Much differently, in a defamation claim, than people think.

      Delete
    23. Funny fact about a one-trick pony, Sean...you can actually ride it to death.

      Delete
    24. @ Sean, no, I've never wondered. I don't care.

      Delete
    25. That's why your case will never go away, you don't care. I think that is the same reason why your custody case went the way it did you don't care.

      Delete
    26. Allie, if Windbag is claiming you damaged his "movie" and business dealings by defaming him, that is his "business" not a personal claim. He is trying to manipulate the court by filing as an individual, but asking for damages to his business/company.

      Delete
    27. And Flemming rolls it up with a shit sling Rush Limbaugh type zinger.
      Damn.
      #threadkiller
      #squirrel

      Delete
    28. really lets be honest Allie came to Windsor the Messiah looking for him to have an influence or change in her custody case. She wanted all of them to come and be there at the court. If these same people what look to others to help out their cases would spend less time worried about bullshit conspiracy theories and putting blame on other people they would be able to handle their own business and court cases. Maybe they would solve how they got there in the first place. We all know the courts are not perfect and judges are elected and are pre biased to some personal pre-dertermined outcome. Thats why we have appellate courts.

      Delete
    29. An attorney is more than just a guy who knows how to file the buracratic paperwork and follow rules, they know court politics. They are your voice.

      Delete
    30. Really? Does your attorney know you think she's a DUDE???

      Delete
    31. Wow Sean, you sure are smart. lol. You are pretty clueless actually, but that's okay, keep on keepin on.

      Delete
    32. Oh Fleming, you think you know how my custody case went, do Ya? What, Ya going by the ridiculous video I made the huge mistake of doing for Windsor? My custody case is the business of the family involved. See, someone here has learned a huge lesson and awakened from an emotional coma, and it ain't you.

      Btw, tell your lawyer I absolutely love reading her motions.

      Delete
  20. It is really interesting that he would post this up, knowing damn well there are several photographs to prove that HE IS A LIAR!

    On this one issue alone, I say, he is full of shit, he is a game playin' mother effer, and I hope he has to pay serious casholeo for the sheer harassment towards people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, a like button would be awesome right here.

      Delete
    2. Franky, it's a real tell how he sees others; he thinks everyone is as stupid as Jerri Blank (Strangers with Candy):

      Principal: What's your IQ?
      Jerri: Pieces.

      Delete
  21. Sean, "I don't have to prove she was either. He will have to prove she wasn't if that is his claim against me.".

    It's a defamation claim. I doubt you ever have to prove it either. But hypothetically, if a miracle happened and he proved enough preponderance of defamation, you'd either have to prove she was or take the defamation rap. That's what I mean, that the burden of proof doesn't always stay with the plaintiff in these cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether she was/is or isn't is hardly material defamation. It might be if Babs is claiming to be the injured party, but she's not.

      Does his reputation suffer from being wrongly tied through a business relationship to her? How bad a person is she to begin with?

      Forest for the trees thing...

      Delete
    2. This is a another forest for the trees thing - Bill posted this law on his .com site re: the FB pages set up in his parents' names. He says "This does seem to be something that the local law enforcement will pursue."

      He also said "These people need to be arrested." That's one statement from Bill with which I agree. Bill and the people providing names and identifying information that Bill has posted have violated this law, IMO.

      Here's the law: Texas Penal Code Sec. 33.07. ONLINE HARASSMENT.
      (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial social networking site :
      (1) without obtaining the other person’s consent; and
      (2) with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person.

      (b) A person commits an offense if the person sends an electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar communication that references a name, domain address, phone number, or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:
      (1) without obtaining the other person’s consent;
      (2) with the intent to cause a recipient of the communication to reasonably believe that the other person authorized or transmitted the communication; and
      (3) with the intent to harm or defraud any person.

      (c) An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree. An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the actor commits the offense with the intent to solicit a response by emergency personnel.

      (d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.

      Delete
    3. Sec. 12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.

      (b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.


      Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:

      (1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;

      (2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or

      (3) both such fine and confinement.


      http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm

      Delete
    4. Yeah if Bill had focused, like just on the FB page of his dad or mom and just kept to that, instead of the everyone is guilty for everything claim, he might have found FB and the authorities much more accommodative to his claims.

      Delete
    5. I think the other problem he may have is applying the TX law. He didn't live in TX when the FB pages were made and I suspect the people that did it don't live in TX either.

      But, that law does apply to Bill. He did live in TX when he posted the names and identifying information of private individuals in TX without permission. And retraction won't suffice to avoid prosecution - just ask Joey Dauben how that worked out for him.

      Delete
    6. Seems like the broader, more flagrant violations are the judge.com sites.

      Delete
    7. yeah thats really my purpose of covering this clown in the first place. He is defaming judges all across the nation. Setting up websites in their name and calling them corrupt and wherever else he wants. He benefits from being too minor for them to waste their time dealing with, but it is a big, unfair, black-mark on their internet name

      Delete
    8. Mete?
      Vigilante style?
      *eyeroll*

      Susie, go sit down. You're going to sprain something that's already decrepit.
      You've done all you can for your Willy, he just can't be helped. Obviously.

      Delete
    9. Nuance this:

      http://i57.tinypic.com/118h8wk.jpg

      Delete
  22. What is Windsor asking in damages in Texas? Sorry, but I don't read the Texas or Kansas or Federal stuff. He's asking ten million dollars from me in Missouri. Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's a million per Joey. So that makes a cool billion just with the 1-1000 joey does.

      Delete
    2. still though, if he wants a cool 10M from you, I guess you get bragging rights in the bounty category

      Delete
    3. Sweet. At least there's that. ^^^ He must not like my answers much, he keeps up-ing the number. Don't be surprised to see the Texas number jump before it's canned, too.

      Delete
    4. And thanks for the answer.

      Delete
    5. And this isn't being heard in federal court why Allie? You know that statute for Federal cases over 75K. Windsor even acknowledged it in the MT Fed motions. Seems odd to me that he bypassed the Federal courts for all the other cases over 75K.

      Delete
    6. @ Ninja, yep, I know. I can't talk about it but there are no worries here.

      Delete
    7. Lololol. Watch, your emoticon will probably set forth six motions.

      Delete
    8. hahahaha I bet you're right. That damn Ninja. I think this is a threat your honor...and I am not sure what (__!__) means, but I am sure that Ninja said to kiss that too. hahahaha (typed with extreme sarcasm and not intended to be any sort of threat to the sane or seemingly insane readers, not naming any names)

      Delete
    9. I see a bludgeoning hammer.

      If not, sign the affidavit...

      Delete
    10. Omg, I spit my iced tea out on that one!

      On a serious note, I think I will go shopping tomorrow and spend my last ten million dollars.

      Delete
    11. so probably count on a motion for an injunction on your shopping spree tomorrow?

      Delete
    12. It wouldn't surprise me, seriously. Note to self- put shopping receipts in the ashtray for safe keeping.

      Delete
    13. ninja its not being heard in Federal court because of her don't care attitude. Windsor called Hargrove a big Oaf and Mr. Windsor is not a thin man. Windsor called me FatBoy. Here is one thing if Windsor wants to have a name calling fest I am all for it. I bet he can not hang. He can meet me in at one of those places on 8 mile where I will tear him apart like the ogre he is.

      Delete
    14. Yes Sean, that's exactly why it's not in Federal Court, oh smart one. The Federal Judge said, oh dude, that Allie just doesn't care, so I'm gonna throw it back to state court based on that, okay, cool. That, and I just couldn't hang with you, up there in smartville. That 8 mile idea is AWESOME! I'm sure Windsor is up for a try, you go first. Five, six, seven, eight.....you betta lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it, you betta neva let it go, you only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow, cuz opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo......

      Delete
    15. Yo?

      I google snorted!

      #federalyo

      Delete
    16. Slim Shady, Sean Fleming, and the Federal Judge, all on the 8 mile stretch tearing Bill up with tough guy rap, yo. Makes me want to slide my hat sideways. It's a wonderful sight.

      Delete
    17. Allie Whew you got my joke. I was worried windsoid would take it as a threat again. :-)

      Delete
    18. Ms. Overstreet's case is not in federal court because the Missouri federal judge granted Windsor's motion to remand it back to state court. (It's one of the few court skirmishes that Windsor has ever won.) The decision looked legally correct to me, FWIW—though it's definitely bad for us sideline spectators, because Missouri state-court filings (unlike federal PACER filings) aren't available for public viewing.

      Regardless, I'd be stunned if Windsor ended up actually winning the Missouri case once it comes to a dispositive motion and/or trial.

      Delete
    19. Thank you attorney. We know why it was remanded back-- based on ONE of the arguments of Jurisdiction (I believe) which Windsor focused on. Except for the fact that there was another issue before the Federal Judge at that time, which for some odd reason was not addressed or it doesn't appear that it was. Whatever the case, Windsor appears to know the guidelines for damages above 75K, (as he mentioned it in his Federal case in MT) and he appears to have manipulated that, by first filing under that amount to get it in the door so to speak, and then amending and amending and amending to get to the obscene amount he now seeks. Just my observation and perception.

      Delete
    20. No, Ninja, Windsor's argument for remand was pretty airtight. (Which makes it fairly memorable; his legal contentions, including the other ones he's made in that particular lawsuit, are much more often ridiculous.) The basis that Ms. Overstreet's attorney had for removing the case from state to federal court was diversity jurisdiction--that's the $75K point you're thinking of. There wasn't any dispute about whether the amount in controversy reached the $75K threshold. The only question was whether the case met the statutory criteria for diversity jurisdiction—and it was awfully clear that it didn't, because Ms. Overstreet is a resident of Missouri. As the federal court explained in its decision:

      Overstreet expressly relies on diversity jurisdiction, but it is well-settled that "a federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction over a removed case in which one of the defendants is a citizen of the forum state." Perfect Output of Kansas City, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., 2012 WL 2921852, at * 1 (W.D. Mo. July 17, 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); see also Horton v. Conklin, 431 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 2005) ("Under the so-called ‘forum defendant rule,’ a non-federal question case ‘shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.’"). Because Overstreet is a citizen of Missouri, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

      There's really not much else to say; the court simply got it right. There is no relevant "another issue" that could overcome that legal problem with federal jurisdiction over the case.

      In hindsight, it appears to me that Sean Fleming's lawyer had a better idea (though she also had a much broader opportunity, because of the way the timing of the Texas case worked): instead of trying to remove the state case to federal court, Fleming's counsel showed up in the federal court to convince it not to give Windsor permission to file the state case in the first place. That effort seems to have succeeded.

      In the end, it looks like Ms. Overstreet is going to win anyway, which is certainly for the best. I just think it's difficult to argue that the Missouri federal court made the wrong decision on Windsor's remand motion.

      Delete
    21. I wonder what the strategic advantages would have been for Ms. Overstreet to move it to Fed? Other than probably have a judge who is well versed on Bill's antics.

      Delete
    22. Nah. Fed penns are typically nicer than state penns.

      Delete
    23. I like Flem Shady's explanation better, lol. I've read the Federal Court's ruling several times and it's just not as funny as "dude, she doesn't care so lets throw it back to state."

      Delete
    24. Statistically, he'd be less likely to be raped in a federal prison.

      Emphasis on statistically...

      Delete
    25. Attorney,

      Thanks so much for the info on Overstreet's failure to remove. I've been curious to know why it failed, but now that curiosity has been satisfied.
      I hope Ms. Overstreet got a refund from her attorney (of course that's a joke--a refund from an attorney has never happened in the history of the world). :-)

      Delete
    26. *sigh*
      dreamy @Attorney & a good giggle snort from AllieO~
      Tuesday is complete~

      #federalyo
      #FlemShady
      #VexiRap
      #refunds

      Delete
    27. I thought most everyone here already knew the Federal Court's decision, it's been awhile now. I'm happy with my attorney's services thus far, and double happy that the public isn't privy to the details. Whew. No refund needed, yo.

      Delete
  23. In other news, an attorney for the State of Utah sent NLA a letter rejecting the idea common law grand juries and the papers NLA filed. It's interesting that the letter came from Iron County. Bill claims to have found lots of corruption in Iron County, he claimed he influenced a judicial election by bad mouthing the DA.

    But NLA will not be deterred and they will not talk to state officials through an attorney. They responded with a letter that says this at the end:

    "Finally the statement that “Therefore I instruct all employees of the state to
    take no action on your documents,” by Chief Justice Matthew B Durrant, Daniel J Beck er, State Court Administrator and Raymond H Wahl, Deputy Court Administrator is an act of High Treason and conspiracy, and we the People demand a retraction immediately."

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/sheriff/03%20Letter%20Attachment%20to%20Sheriff.pdf

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/sheriff/03%20Memo%20to%20the%20Sheriff.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me, Bill said he hoped he influenced the election.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ68Za_LEGo

      There is not video of the Cheek's posted - they are claiming corruption with regard to civil rights violations of the daughter. She is serving 6 years to life in prison for kidnapping.

      Delete

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