Thursday, May 8, 2014

Facebook Responds to Windsor's Lawsuit with "So What?"

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4qOlSHNnmKeX1JJdW9GRlRyNFk/edit?usp=sharing

While Bill continues to file his hurt feelings report across the country, he now has another female attorney to add to his can't stand list as he received the legal equivalent of a bitch slap in California from Facebook's legal department.  As you might recall, this lawsuit is because his feelings were hurt when FB took down his site due to sexually related material.  Of course this is very much within their right, but Bill's feelings were badly hurt and a frivolous lawsuit must ensue.

After not being served correctly, Facebook finally got notice of the lawsuit and they filed a Demurrer.  In this, attorney Julie Schawrtz points out that even if every single thing Bill is claiming is true, which btw he didn't document any of it, it still doesn't meet the standard for making a claim.  In another of words, its another frivolous lawsuit by someone whom seems incapable of filing anything but.

Ms. Schawrtz's assessment of Bill is spot on with the first sentence in the Introduction:

"Plaintiff William Windsor' s (" Plaintiff') Complaint against Defendant Facebook, Inc.
(" Facebook") is replete with inflammatory rhetoric, but it is entirely bereft of any factual
 allegation of misconduct attributable to Facebook."

Indeed, and well put.  In fact, you could apply that statement to all of Windsor's legal filings.  He is big on claims, short on evidence, and as we will see in this response.....he can't even provide even the most basic forms of evidence in support of his crazy claims.

"Each of Plaintiffs claims fails because Plaintiff fails to identify any Facebook account or any of the alleged actionable statements, leaving the Complaint devoid of even the most rudimentary facts necessary to support his claims."

Wow Bill, you didn't even save any evidence of the facebook pages you are claiming somehow harmed you? You expect FB to provide you with all the evidence that you need in order to sue them?  This ranks right up there with asking Google to give you all of your own emails.

The response goes on to list the TOS for FB which show that they were well within their rights as well as cite the CDA in that they are not responsible for 3rd party content, same as with Google.  I wonder if they know that Bill doesn't consider the CDA to be Constitutional?  But the real fun is when Schwartz gets to the different claims Bill tried to make:

"Negligence. To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must plead " the existence of duty
( the obligation to other persons to conform to a standard of care to avoid unreasonable risk of
harm to them); breach of duty (conduct below the standard of care); causation ( between the
defendant' s act or omission and the plaintiffs injuries); and damages." Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.,
Cal. 4th 465, 500 ( 2601). Plaintiff alleges no facts giving rise to liability for negligence.
Indeed, Plaintiffs contention that Facebook owed him a duty to keep Facebook safe is directly
contradicted by the Terms. ( See Schwartz Decl., Ex. A at §§ 16.2, 16. 3.); see also Young v.
Facebook, Inc., 5: 10- CV-03579- JF/PVT, 2010 WL 4269304, at * 4 ( N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010)
The plaintiff' s] first contention is without merit because, as noted above, Facebook expressly
disclaimed any duty to protect users' online safety"). Because Facebook had no duty to Plaintiff
to prevent others from posting content that Plaintiff finds objectionable or for guaranteeing that
content posted by Plaintiff would not be removed, Plaintiffs negligence claim fails."

"Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The elements of intentional infliction of
emotional distress are: "( 1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention
of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; ( 2) the
plaintiffs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and ( 3) actual and proximate causation
of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct." Christensen v. Superior Court,
54 Cal. 3d 868, 903 ( 1991) ( citations omitted). " Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as
to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community." Id. (citing Davidson v.
City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 209 ( 1982).) The defendant must have engaged in " conduct
intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result."

-With this kicker of a sentence to sum up the essence of Bill Windsor:  
"That Plaintiff disagrees with Facebook' s decisions does not mean that Facebook' s behavior was " false," " malicious," or outrageous."

In response to Tortious Interference:
"In addition, because Plaintiff described the Page as about a movie that is still in production with no known release date, there can be no economic damage resulting from its removal."
You don't understand, all of his cases are based on that faulty premise....if you take that one away all he has left is Barbara left me because someone said meanie things about me.

In relation to Fraud:
"Not only are Plaintiff' s general conclusory allegations insufficient
to satisfy general fact pleading standards, but they are unquestionably deficient in satisfying the
heightened pleading standards required for fraud and other fraud -based claims, such as Plaintiff' s
unfair business practices claim."
Don't you know that Bill Windsor is smarter than all of the lawyers out there?  He is on a level you just can't even begin to comprehend Julie.

On Unfair Business Practice:
"Plaintiff' s allegations similarly do not plead an " unfair" practice. An act or practice is
unfair if (l) the consumer injury is substantial; ( 2) the injury is not outweighed by any
countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; and ( 3) the injury is not one that consumers
themselves could not reasonably have avoided."
-Those sound like really high marks to reach, can't we just all agree to the Windsor Rules of Court and say that if Bill said he had a business and that business was harmed.....thats good enough for court?

Ms. Schwartz sums all of this up nicely with this zinger for Bill:
"When Plaintiffs hyperbolic characterizations are removed, at most, Plaintiff alleges that
he disagreed with Facebook' s decision to remove the Page. And protection from spurious claims
of wrongful removal is exactly what the CDA was implemented to protect."

Once again, when you remove all the histrionics....all that is left is spurious allegations.

46 comments:

  1. "...when you remove all the histrionics....all that is left is spurious allegations."

    Yep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the "hyperbolic characterizations" Yep! Revert to Butthurt form above.

      (I see Snoozie is particularly upset with this Facebook response. Wonder if it's because she tried to help Windsor with it, so it's a personal bitch slap to her. Why else would she be so upset. There is no disputing what Facebook said.)

      Delete
    2. Normal people don't play that game.

      Delete
    3. What about malice, Alice? Could that enter into the equation as regards the individuals sued, in your opinion?

      Delete
  2. Pissst. There has never been a movie or tv show created yet. That's a fact jack! Bill will never have a movie hence he's already said he has changed his entire life goal to going after cyberstalkers. You are out of luck if you thought you'd be in a movie and 2nd if you though you were giving a testimony to congress.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I swear, someone needs to make a documentary on what an idiot he is. I think it would be a hit at Sundance!
    The Trooth!

    ReplyDelete
  4. LOL it truly is all summed up in that one statement!

    "That Plaintiff disagrees with Facebook' s decisions does not mean that Facebook' s behavior was " false," " malicious," or outrageous."

    ReplyDelete
  5. "See Complaint £25 (Plaintiff "does not have a paying job")"

    It's not a job. It's a profession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spammy meant ¶25 not £25.

      Delete
    2. I and my spammy are one. Note to self: pilcrow not pound.

      Delete
    3. Take it up with my keyboard. Point got across.

      Delete
    4. LOL it's not even a profession. His filming at best is a hobby. Same with the stalking and suing. No difference. Film people, upload onto some site, write a "story" for his "magazine," and sue when he's not "filming".

      Delete
    5. Digging the quotation marks.

      Allie Gate

      Delete
  6. Bill is posting about Receipts and Donations. Is it me but why would you need a receipt for a donation unless they are filing taxes. But onto of Windsors latest post, he puts a notice on the right hand side saying, "Lawless America is not now and never has been a 501 c 3. Bill Windsor has never solicited donations on the basis that they would be tax-deductible because they are not. Bill Windsor and Lawless America ceased accepting donations in the Spring of 2013, and there are no plans to ever accept donations again."

    That's awesome, but what about the articles that state this in them?

    "Who is Producing The Movie?

    Bill Windsor is the Producer/Director. The film has been financed solely with donations, primarily from the victims. Professional video and audio equipment has been provided. Everyone helping with the movie has been working for free.

    A non-profit 501 c 3 entity was formed: Lawless America Association."

    Good luck finding them all and changing them too. A bit too late for now. But, Hey here is a hint it starts June 2nd 2013.

    DOH BART! (insert stupid photo here)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL oh those pesky "haters." Finding and keeping all the articles, talkshoe's, etc. where he claimed the things he now denies. Oh, if only the world was full of lemmings who simply believe the World According To Windsor. But alas...it's simply not that way, and there are checks and balances (tee hee pun intended) that will come a knocking down that pesky reality door. Oh, but it's all good, he can just keep writing how he never wrote what he wrote, or never said what he said. In his head that's all that matters any way. (some other three letter people probably disagree)

      Delete
    2. Everyone knows that a 501 c3 means non profit, ie tax deductible. So whether he believes he is covered because he wants to pretend he didn't specifically state the donations were actually tax deductible is a far stretch. WTH is he thinking? Why write 501 c3 at all? Is he really trying to play this game?

      Also, if he claimed everyone who donated would be listed as a "financier" of the movie, why is he asking now for people to contact him for receipts? Shouldn't rocket scientist boy have written down the names of the people for the credits? He is such a dumbass. He's trying so hard to cover up, he's screwing up.

      Delete
    3. I just typed out a novel on my personal witness to the donation subject. And deleted it. I will just say this, I was there. DOH is an under statement.

      Delete
    4. /* Sarcasm begin */
      That database was eaten by a cat...er...dog...ya...that's the ticket. He fell on magic ice a couple of days *before* the ice storm hit, and he's never taken any investments and he won't solicit donations ever again because he's Mensa qualified like Sharon V. Snoonzan. Why can't all you cyber-stalking haters get that?
      /* Sarcasm End */

      Delete
    5. Me thinks an audit draws nigh.

      "Perhaps a backdated story, I shall write?"

      Delete
    6. So a lonely old man drives around the nation filming people for his own youtube collection while staying in high end hotels and spending plenty on food.....kinda sounds more like a creepy man's vacation. What happens if the IRS sees it that way? His $150,000 figure or whatever he wants to come up with on expenses is irrelevant if he is just on vacation.

      Delete
    7. He shouldn't worry. Babs should.

      That house is a sitting duck for seizure.

      Delete
    8. what do you mean "that" house....there are two ducks on that pond

      Delete
    9. I like how the amount he claims he received in donation keeps going down, and the amount he paid out himself keeps going up. (I won't post where all the inconsistencies he's written or said himself are. But they are safely saved. LOL) Lets not forget-- he hasn't done any work on his hobby in about a year. He's been too busy stalking and suing, so he can't write off any of that.

      I would say that the IRS will view this venture as a hobby. He's got nothing to prove otherwise. Him claiming it's legit doesn't make it so. Also, this is where the Delaware filing will come into play. He claimed they were a "non profit" there, as well as someone who doesn't want to acknowledge their name being listed as director, yet that person conveniently holds all the assets through the ever so conveniently timed "divorce." Oh yes, I see Open Can....Worms....Everywhere.

      Delete
    10. LMAO Sharon. You clearly didn't see Windsor's frantic post about the IRS investigation. SMH you are so stupid.

      Delete
    11. Sharron,well how does it feel to be out your non-deductable do action?

      Delete
    12. Non deductable donation

      Delete
    13. Question: If Windsor needs the names of donors to issue receipts to now, his accounting must be non existent. Who was keeping track of the income from the shirt and hat sales? He said they were making money off each one. And, what happened to the 500$ per state for the DVD's? Did he send out the DVD's or did he just pocket that money?

      Delete
    14. I think back when Bill was doing all this he was intentionally trying to avoid any kind of paper trail. Thats why he has no idea who gave him what and the number keeps changing. Now the chicken's have come home to roost so to speak and he needs that paper trail he has, thus far, been trying to avoid.

      Delete
    15. I see the ANII is back...and yes, we're all BORED with you. Now switch on your timer and let's see how fast your post will disappear.

      Delete
    16. I find it very odd that a man who brags about running so many supposedly successful companies wouldn't know to keep accurate records. Oh wait, I forgot about the IRS audit with 1st Communications, and the subsequent sell off to repay the very LARGE debt to the IRS. Never mind. (I don't find it odd any more. Makes perfect sense)

      Delete
    17. Traits of a serial entrepreneur..

      Delete
  7. If I request a receipt? Will it come with a commemorative, collector's edition frame?

    ❥ :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I request a receipt, will I get a listing in the movie credits?

      Delete
    2. Maybe I'll ask for a receipt for the 5 taxi cabs, 2 hotel rooms, and 6 dinners I sprang for to cover his ass in DC. That's tax deductible, right? Lol.

      Delete
    3. No Allie that would prove that you know about the receipts and that Barbara and you discussed buses from the tour company Alcatraz media. SHHH Barbara never helped out.

      Delete
    4. Well, I do know about receipts. But Babs and I have never communicated. That's how rumors get started. Smh.

      Delete
    5. If the IRS does audit him.....his little court games won't apply. Answering everything with "I believe that" and an undersigned notary won't hold much sway with them.

      Delete
    6. "Gee whiz, I was only trying to overthrow your employer.

      Lighten up, guys..."

      Delete
  8. So then it is possible that Alcatraz has written off something's as giving services to a non-profit

    ReplyDelete
  9. ♀♪♫◙○◘•♠♣♦♥☻☺▐ £⌂○D ╕╣║╗║╗╣Ç¿╝Çî╝╜╛┐╦L¡τ╘☺☺²ⁿσ¶X°

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow. This right here is scary. Somebody posted the first link below on NLA's site, applauding Sheriff Denny Peyman (Jackson Co, KY) because he arrested a county judge and the treasurer. Peyman calls himself a "Constitutional" sheriff and he was supported for re-election by Sheriff Mack in a rally last week.

    Peyman disrupted a meeting to arrest the judge, he did it without an indictment or a warrant. He didn't even have a quo warranto from a CLGJ. The SovCits complain that we have a "police state" and LE civil rights violations; well WTH was that? I'm wondering if Peyman has even read the Constitution.

    The People of Jackson Co did play along with Peyman for a minute. A special prosecutor was called in to review Peyman's case. The charges were dismissed by the prosecutor. In a hearing the prosecutor said "after reviewing the case and talking with Peyman for more than two hours, he found a lack of evidence to support the criminal charges. Given that belief, Steele said, he had an ethical obligation not to prosecute the case."

    The primary for Jackson Co is on 5/20. In a radio program (posted on Peyman's FB page) Peyman says there are 7 or 8 people running for Sheriff. For the sake of Jackson Co, KY, I hope Peyman is voted out of office.

    http://www.kentucky.com/2014/01/14/3033380/sheriff-arrests-judge-executive.html

    http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/06/3072667/judge-dismisses-criminal-charges.html

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sheriff-Denny-Peyman/679575302081426


    And this about Sheriff Mack popped up while I was reading about Peyman: his strategy in the Bundy thing was to put woman up front so if the Feds started shooting, the women would be shot first. Mack, btw, has not been a Sheriff since 1997.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/15/1292089/--Update-ChickenSh-t-TeaParty-Militia-Leader-Richard-Mack-Planned-To-Use-Woman-as-Human-Shields

    ReplyDelete
  11. If anyone has committed treason it is Windsor himself who has declared people the enemy of the state.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know one thing, some people we know work in the science field.(eyes roll)

      Delete
    2. If you're referring to Windsor's latest Scientology spin, LOL.
      I think I will have to talk to Tom about this.
      Windsor?...Eyes wide shut.

      Delete