Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Bill Windsor is Extradited to Missoula Montana


He will be arraigned in the morning....should be interesting

214 comments:

  1. [IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/156vh29.jpg[/IMG]

    Seriously, for Billy, this is Hell.

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/03/24/440-pound-chocolate-peanut-butter-cup-breaks-guinness-world-record/?intcmp=obmod_ffo&intcmp=obnetwork

    ReplyDelete
  2. Goodness. At such long last, the criminal proceedings that have been promised for so many months are finally going to take place. This is some serious legal drama--no joke.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, right...

    "Lawless America California
    19 mins ·
    Greetings again Lawless America participants and supporters. This is the latest message that I received this evening regarding Bill Windsor: "he is in Missoula County Ty Detention Center - - 2340 Mullan Rd Missoula, MT 59808. He has an excellent attorney, is NOT rep himself."

    Bill had found Montana to be the most corrupt state in the U.S. and it is in that state's university where the alleged man that wanted to kill Bill is employed!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These accusations are so schizophrenic in nature. Now we are back to 1 man only who wanted Bill dead. What happened to the nation wide conspiracy and group stalking? What happened to it being a government sting?

      Delete
  4. I'm in Missoula. Not sure I will make the 8:00 hearing. But if others are not already here to report, I will be glad to go to the court clerk's office and look things up, as his many many motions and appeals are sure to take place. (Not Boushie, not a party to any of his lawsuits, just fascinated by it all.)





















    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thing you have this blog to keep updated about your crush, Huh ..Snoozie?
      Thank goodness you got the message to Cruz about your Fatass Crush being in the Missoula jail after you read it here.
      The " He has an excellent attorney, is NOT rep himself"
      part is freakin' hilarious ... what excellent attorney, You? HAHAHAHAHHAHAH .... You have had ZERO contact/communication with your fatass crush since his fat ass got bussed to Montana, ZERO .. I repeat, zero ... the only info you have is this blog.
      But, hey .. Cruz and the other four remaining lemmings
      believe you've got the inside tract & secret info about your Fatass JAILED Crush. If Cruz & the four remaining lemmings had a brain cell between them, they'd realize that you have had no messages, texts, phone calls etc from your fatass JAILED Crush since he went on lockdown in Ada Co, Tuesday night.
      They could also research and see that he is not allowed visits, phone calls etc for 24 hrs after being booked into
      the Missoula Jail .. And, BTW ... you'd sell your left shriveled OLD, wrinkled tit for a chance to be at his arraignment, tomorrow .. who are you kidding?

      Delete
    2. In all that time, the Lemmings were unable to organize a protest in Idaho or Texas. But his Montana Welcoming Committee should be there in oh---mid to late July.
      http://www.kulr8.com/story/28611729/zombie-apocalypse-head-for-missoula

      Delete
    3. Anon@8:17 ... Don't worry, TVOI (The voice of Idaho) is all over it, repeating & posting his lies & feverishly seeking information and justice for him in ... wait for it ....
      IDAHO !!!!
      BAHAHAHAHAH !!!

      Delete
    4. Oh Snooze, as always I know what you lie about and pretend to know
      Which is everything.

      Delete
    5. Susan has shown us time and again that she has no clue what is happening and what's coming next. It's all just another pathetic attempt to be relevant in some way. It's really quite sad she is so desperate for any interaction with people. I have to say, I really don't blame Sharon Galloway's family for not having anything to do with her. Just like Bill's family, they had all they could stand and moved on.

      Delete
    6. "Susan" has a very predictable pattern. She lives off of a disability check and government provided healthcare (perscriptions). She is relatively quite for the first few weeks of the month. As she takes more than the prescribed dose of her government provided medications, so she runs out before the end of the month. That's why she becomes more active the last 7-10 days of the month. You'll notice she will go quiet again as soon as the 3rd of the month arrives. That's when she gets her refill and can medicate herself again. Just have patience, this month is almost over and she'll go away for a few weeks.

      Delete
    7. The funny part is you know I'm dead on right. And you weren't trying to explain this blog to anyone. No one will talk to you for more than a few minutes. I'm sure the entire conversation was you telling them how superior you are to them. You're a clueless idiot Sharon.

      Delete
    8. Actually, I've made it a point to try to save off Snooze's posts before they are flushed.
      Assuming a reasonable collection of these posts, one could perform a bi-variate analysis with, for example, Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient to establish a linear correlation metric between date and frequency of posting.

      Of course, why anyone would bother to waste his/her valuable time attempting to prove Snooze's a freak is beyond me. For any sentient being, the matter is obvious.

      Delete
    9. DOAH! I didn't save off Snooze's last two troll droppings!

      Delete
    10. Of course, why anyone would bother to waste his/her valuable time attempting to prove Snooze's a freak is beyond me. For any sentient being, the matter is obvious.

      Agreed...Although she does provide such comedic relief, and is the 'perfect' spokesperson for "brainless america", A stellar example of what Bills supporters are really about...What will mary do, when all have grown weary of her rants?? Very sad :( Prepare for that day mary (its coming sooner than later), when you finally bore the shit out of those that despise you, exactly who will be listening?? Its "julia' and Cruz".....find a hobby bitch

      Delete
  5. the funny thing is windsors charges are real unlike the fake facebook advocacy we observe daily.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rebecca Mclaughlin of Lawless RI is out of jail and posting up a storm on her personal Facebook page. ( her lawless page was taken down ). Still claiming corruption for her arrests, this time for assault and the last time for stealing. It seems she believes that she and Windsor are responsible for a state rep pleading guilty to a bribery charge. Every time a RI politician gets into some kind of mess she claims it was because of her whistle-blowing. That woman is a joke. I wonder if she really believes she and bill are that powerful or is she just rousing the few remaining lemmings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. hemorrhagic vasculitis, sepsis, encephalitis, hemorrhagic stroke, uretitis, gross large hemorrhaged eye, carditis, potentially fatal heart blocks, heart attacks, pericardial effusion, acute respiratory distress, pulmonary hypertension, lymphadenopathy, enlarged spleen, hemorrhaged liver, projectile vomiting, severe GI pain, debilitating arthritic sepsis and paralysis due to nearly fatal misdiagnosed and left untreated Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever, Erhlichiosis caffenesis, late-disseminated and chronic Lyme disease, Bartonella, Babesiosis (similar to malaria), and relapsing fever

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You left out the bugged out eyes and some other new ones.

      MaryD thinks she's the poster child for Lyme, but she's really the poster child for Munchausen's. Read some possible lyme issues, and bam, she claims she has them all. If she's not claiming she has all these issues, it doesn't count. Unless she is currently suffering each and every issue she writes, (which by the sounds of it, she'd be on her death bed and not on FB) she's simply a big, fat, faker, looking for sympathy.

      (and the list grows weekly) She doesn't seem to understand that potential issues, doesn't mean she has them, or will ever, so she can't sue over them--unless or until she is suffering from them. It's been ten some odd years down the road now? 20? 30? She's still going to be claiming the same things. Can you imagine people suing over a potential thing? Your Honor, I may at some point come down with these things, so I need you to rule in my favor, even though, there is no proof I ever even suffered what I claim. Idiot!

      Delete
    2. Oh, correction, I see the "gross large hemorrhaged eye" on there. So many words crammed together...

      Delete
    3. She should pick just two or three and emphasize those. I would go with the eye (shorten it simply to "gross eye"), respiratory distress, and projectile vomiting. Not sure I would want to meet this woman. Does she wear a patch over the eye?

      Delete
    4. There's a state senator in Nevada trying to get pot for pets. Ironically, the senator sponsoring the bill is Democratic Sen. Tick Segerblom.

      (Not kidding).

      Delete
    5. "Grossly large" is quite sufficient...LMFAO

      Delete
  8. Court outburst. Taser deployed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. [IMG]http://i57.tinypic.com/50l4w1.jpg[/IMG]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No Bond"......how wonderful those two words are together

      Delete
    2. Kinda like "corrupt judge"...

      Delete
    3. Susan was right, I'm so disappointed in that. I hoped they would no bond him just for being a complete ass rag!

      Delete
    4. I wonder if Bill still thinks this is all just a game to him?

      Delete
    5. See www.williamburt.com for details.

      Delete
    6. Snoozie says it is a game. She's his right hand you know. She knows everything, and she's just SO honest. That No Bond must be a mistake. He's innocent, and she knows just what to file to get him out! Just wait for it. (And if she doesn't know, she'll make it up. Vexi's are good at that frivolous crap that clogs up the courts)

      Delete
    7. At 2:30pm Windsor will have ALL the charges MONTANA has read to him.
      The daily morning arraignment? Too time consuming. He got the #NoBond news & went back to holding cell to wait.
      The detention facility is severaliles from the Justice Courts, Windsor will receive this looooooong list via video from the Justice Court judge presiding today. Then? His lengthy felony charges will be adsigned to District Court(s).

      Is that dumbed down enough for Legal Eagle, aka BlessHerHeart, Ms Galloway?

      Derrr! Today is merely Day One. Eventually, he'll get a housing assignment, & hearings will begin. His scribbles won't work. And what attorney? Bwahahahaha!!! IF there is one? BLESS their everything!

      Yup, Sharon/SnoozaLooze/GaryWinston really helped Windsor. I hope she keeps it up! He needs a lot more like her assisting him, hers' & Windsor's actions have been such huge successes!

      The email I got from the 10th Court of Appeals in Texas yesterday? HILARIOUS!
      He's facing life in prison, but scribing snit to Texas 10th? Duh!

      Did I mention how GOOD life is? It is just terrific! Well, for everyone except Windsor & his twit Sharon & the other dim bulbs hanging on. NewsFlash! Windsor is off the grid! For STALKING. Not #Tweets or emails, real criminal STALKING. Repeatedly. For years.
      Yay!
      Happy day, y'all!
      My thoughts & best wishes to all the families that have had to deal with Windsor, Justice, finally. Y'all deserve this! Bravo!

      Delete
    8. No I have been trying to find out what the facts are. I am having a hard time finding out what exactly Windsor says Boushie did in the first place to be accused of corruption.

      Delete
    9. if you are looking for facts.....what bill said would be the last place on planet earth to go for them.

      Delete
    10. I was trying to figure out what supposedly Boushie did to garner the attention of windsor.
      I can tell windsor is trying make a dime off of real or perceived corruption. I know he was begging for money while in ID jail.
      Just hard to find any facts. Just alot of boho'ing from Windsor supports and a lot of name calling on the other side.

      The reason I got curious is that on a Windsor support site they talked about him being in jail in ID for 4.1 mil bond. So I tried to post a comment about why he was in an ID jail if the charges were in MT. The admin would not release my post and would not answer me. So, I really thought there is something fishy about this guy.

      Delete
    11. The Boushie/Windsor thing is somewhat cloudy in its formation. To the best that can be seen it arose from Bill supporting people such as Crystal Cox who already had a beef with Boushie and Bill took up their cause vicariously and it spilled into what it is now.

      Delete
    12. I read the protective orders on line and some of what was ordered was a little outrageous. I can see that windsor being order to stay a certain distance away from the Boushies' persons and home and work place. But a protective order is not legally binding over intellectual property which a domain name is. If windsor registered the site, it is his IP. I also question the legality of a protective order that denies someone their right to keep and bare arms. Especially, light of the fact Windsor is not a resident of MT. A really weird case.

      Delete
    13. This is fun....Now that you mentioned Crystal Cox...I googled that mess and read a bunch of court documents. What a mess

      Delete
    14. @anon1:57 : "Outrageous" ?
      Are you for real?
      You need to do a lot more reading/researching about what vicious, criminal harassing, slandering, stalking things BW has done to Sean and many here on this blog .. You have a lot of "catching up" to do . PS: Since when is a Hate.com a intelluctual property?

      Delete
    15. The order I read said nothing about hate.com. Not taking any sides in this matter but registered domain names are intellectual property and has been decided in the courts.

      Delete
    16. @anon:2:14

      Windsor, in my opinion, and it is opinion only, seems to be shady and probably is getting some well deserved payback.
      On the other hand, seems to me that, again just an opinion on my part, from other information found on the web that Boushie might be a bit of a cyber bully/stalker.

      But I stand by my comments on the IP and firearms thing. That judge might need to brush up on current case law and the constitution.

      Delete
    17. I would say that virtually all the evidence that Boushie cyber-stalked Bill came from Bill. Only one of them took out a defamatory website in the name of the other.

      Delete
    18. Digging...here is petition filed by Ms. Cox with Fed Court. Having to do with Boushie threatening Cox. Actually she has uncovered quite a bit of cyber bullying by Boushie.

      All this over a recall election of a sheriff who happens to be Boushie's father-in-law....the plot thickens.

      Made for TV movie stuff here.

      Delete
    19. But again with Cox and Windsor....both are violently allergic to truth in any form. Any and everything claimed by them should be considered a lie until proven otherwise

      Delete
    20. forgot the link
      sorry forgot the filing:

      http://ia801608.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918/gov.uscourts.nvd.92918.26.0.pdf

      Delete
    21. exactly....notice how Cox and Windsor write their claims the exact same way. Neither one has the slightest clue what an actual fact is. Conspiracies alleged here and there....but never any actual cold hard facts. And there is a reason they avoid facts.

      Delete
    22. Anon@2:32 ... No, you need to brush up on current case law and the constitution.

      1) Restraining Order Terms: "No Contact" and Other Coverage

      The scope of restraining orders can be wide. A court can direct someone's action (or inaction), or restrict how people deal with property. Some common restraining order terms or conditions include orders not to:

      Call, email, send letters to or otherwise contact someone
      Enter a family home
      Remove children from a certain state or area
      Sell marital property
      Possess or buy a firearm

      2) The United States, for example, has the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999. This expansion of the Lanham (Trademark) Act (15 U.S.C.) is intended to provide protection against cybersquatting for individuals as well as owners of distinctive trademarked names. .
      Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can have the names deleted or transferred to their ownership (which means paying regular renewal fees on all the names or risk their being registered by someone else). Under the ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) a cybersquatter can be held liable for actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of a maximum of $100,000 for each name found to be in violation, although application of this act in the form of actual fines assessed are few in number. In one of the first applications of the ACPA, the plaintiff, Brian Salle, sought relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129 from defendant Garner W. Meadows. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that "all personal names" are protected under the act and established that personal names must be "protected as a mark" for 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) to apply. The court did award summary judgement under 15 U.S.C. § 1129(1)(A), with the award being the transfer of the domain briansalle.com to his control and judgment for attorney's fees against Garner W. Meadows of approximately $30,000.00. Monetary awards under the ACPA are infrequent at best, and the cost of filing a case is prohibitive for the average individual.

      Delete
    23. The first 4 1/2 pages on that Cox suit are defendants AND she has John does 1-5000. That should be a big red Bullshit flag right there.

      Lets not forget that Cox has a multi-million dollar Judgment against her.

      I agree with Ginger, that Windsor and Cox, as well as some others who flocked to Windsor all suffer from the same vindictive narcissistic syndrome. They chose to follow Windsor, who seemed to be the leader on how to harass and defame numerous people. He, Cox, Baron/Margetis/Dauben all have the same goal of domain hoarding to slander people they don't like. It's a common sickness among those who joined in Lawless America. Sue as many people as possible, without one shred of proof or evidence, and just tie up people you hate for years using the court as your weapon.

      Delete
    24. @Ginger Snap...There are a lot of shady people out there. Got to admit those 2 do a lot of research on their victims.

      Delete
    25. depends on the definition of the word research

      Delete
    26. @AnonymousMarch 26, 2015 at 3:40 PM

      What you cite for protective orders typically deal with married couples who have joint property and children, not two unrelated parties who don't jointly own property or have children together.

      Protective orders cannot prevent anyone from owning firearm.

      #2 Yes..but the enforcement of ACPA is not through a protective order. A DA would have to prefer charges and indict me on violation of ACPA or someone brings suit against me for ACPA violation.

      Delete
    27. You are wrong on BOTH counts, Anon@4:11
      ESPECIALLY this " What you cite for protective orders typically deal with married couples who have joint property and children, not two unrelated parties who don't jointly own property or have children together.
      Protective orders cannot prevent anyone from owning firearm." = WTF?
      Are you for real? PPO's are limited to married couples? Ummmm no what I cited is standard in regards to all PPO's if the judge wishes to order them and to all STALKERS ... including preventing the Stalker from owning, possessing a firearm.
      How do you enforcement of ACPA is not through a protective order? The DA did bring STALKING charges and the judge acted upon those charges with a PPO that included giving SB the site. DUH !!!

      Delete
    28. Enforcement of ACPA. DA prefers charges and convenes a grand jury. The grand jury indicts windsor of violating the ACPA law. The indict is used to issue a warrant for windsor's arrest on charges of violating ACPA. Windsor is arrested, arraigned, and tried by a jury of his peers where the DA has to present evidence and prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that windsor is guilty. If the jury believes windsor, he goes free and keeps the domain name. If they believe the prosecutor, he is found guilty of violating the ACPA. The judge then sentences windsor in accordance with the punishment set forth in ACPA and windsor goes to jail, pays a fine, and relinquishes ownership of the domain name.

      There are very few circumstances that allow for the government to strip you of your right to own a firearm. Being a convicted felon is one of them...otherwise there are very few. A county judges' PO is not one of them.

      You seem to be a product of the public education system. I highly recommend that you take some civics class and learn how our judicial system works and what your rights are. It is because of sleeping sheeple like you that our once great nation is turning into a fascist police-state.

      Delete
    29. @6;39 : Try again, DipShit ...

      Many states have adopted laws that restrict access to firearms by domestic abusers:
      More than a dozen states prohibit possession of firearms by domestic violence misdemeanants, and five states specifically require abusers to surrender firearms when convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor;
      Three states have enacted laws to facilitate the reporting of domestic violence misdemeanants to the database used for background checks;
      About two-thirds of the states prohibit firearm possession by abusers who are subject to domestic violence protective orders;
      About half of the states authorize or require a court that is issuing a domestic violence protective order to require the abuser to surrender firearms; and
      About a third of the states authorize or require law enforcement officers to remove firearms when they arrive at the scene of a domestic violence incident.
      These laws are described in detail below. Some of these laws apply to ammunition, as well as firearms.
      1. State Laws Prohibiting Domestic Violence Misdemeanants from Purchasing or Possessing Firearms or Ammunition33
      As noted above, federal law prohibits purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by persons convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” but federal law defines that term narrowly. Many states go beyond federal law and prohibit purchase or possession of firearms or ammunition by persons with misdemeanor convictions involving a broader class of victims. The strongest laws prohibit purchase or possession of firearms by individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors generally, regardless of the victim’s relationship to the offender.

      Delete
    30. A county judges' PO is not one of them. You seem to be a product of the public education system.

      Oh that's rich! You seem not to know the English language has no plural indefinite article.

      Delete
    31. Wow, defending a stalker whose violated a protective order 3 times, right to carry a gun....Ive heard it all, thats really beyond ignorant, jmo, of course...wow...Guess you or your loved ones havent even been a victim of stalking...Nah

      Delete
    32. Yeah, and when/if he's convicted of these numerous felonies? Mr. Pro Gun will probably have a heart attack about this too!

      "Can felons own guns? Is this governed by state or federal law? Does this apply to only certain types of guns or all guns?

      In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

      This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where your civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until your felony is expunged, you are not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

      Are any types of felonies excluded?
      Actually, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)(A) specifically exempts a few types of felonies:

      ...any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices..."

      Delete
  10. williamburt.com
    William Burt, Author of: "Elusive Birds"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awww, since that one is already taken, poor Billy will have to pick another dot whatever for him then.

      Delete
  11. Whole thing seems a little ridiculous. Exactly what is Windsor guilty of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not if you've been paying attention, and don't read what he claims. Stay tuned...perhaps you might learn something. Of course, if you're a lemming, you'll probably claim it is a "Conspiracy" because that's what Windsor wants you to believe.

      He's a shady motherfucker IMO and the truth will come out. There are tons of things he didn't want anyone to know about...but soon, it will all be revealed.

      Delete
    2. I was trying to figure out what supposedly Boushie did to garner the attention of windsor.
      I can tell windsor is trying make a dime off of real or perceived corruption. I know he was begging for money while in ID jail.
      Just hard to find any facts. Just alot of boho'ing from Windsor supports and a lot of name calling on the other side.

      The reason I got curious is that on a Windsor support site they talked about him being in jail in ID for 4.1 mil bond. So I tried to post a comment about why he was in an ID jail if the charges were in MT. The admin would not release my post and would not answer me. So, I really thought there is something fishy about this guy.

      Delete
    3. I'm guessing this is the article mentioned.

      http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/03/16/who-is-trying-to-silence-filmmaker-and-judicial-watchdog-bill-windsor-currently-held-in-county-jail/

      Delete
    4. Yep...I have tried to post several questions about this case and the admin won't release them.

      Delete
    5. Just alot of boho'ing from Windsor supports and a lot of name calling on the other side.

      Did you try to post on one of Windsor's FB pages?

      I'm going to assume you're not a troll and you are sincerely researching/ searching for facts. This site is a mixed site; we present facts but we also have fun at Windsor's expense--why? Because he has had his form of fun with so many of us. His form of fun involves throwing folks "under the bus" who tired to help him but didn't accept his fraud and lies. His form of fun also involves suing folks he thinks defamed him. In point of fact, just a year ago, you would have been on Windsor's short list of new defendants because you posted on this blog!
      IMO, what we do here is far less than a celeb roast on the Comedy channel. In any case, if you seek "just the facts," here's a great site to visit:

      http://lifeinpiercecounty.com

      Delete
    6. What set off the alarm was the call for contributions but there was contradicting information on the site. Just really fishy.

      Delete
    7. Websites that commit a crime....such as the unauthorized release of personal identifying information can and do get seized by law enforcement.

      Case in point, check out Joey Dauben's old blog, the person we covered before Bill......http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/

      Delete
    8. Yes, but there is huge difference between what Dauben did and what Windsor did. Second, most non-governmental parties are not subject to PII regulations/laws. These laws are meant to protect private citizens privacy and typically are only applied to government agencies. I am not sure that posting someone's name in conjunction with a civil action constitutes a PII violation.

      Maybe a judge can have a site taken down as a result of a civil action but I would think that would require a trail. So handing control over IP via a protective order is probably not legal.

      Not trying to be combative and I don't want to be accused of being a troll. Just curious because all the site around this controversy are so one sided for either one.

      Delete
    9. yeah I have no idea if a court has the authority to force him to give up the site....but shouldn't he have made that argument to the court? You can't just blow off a PO just because you don't think its legal....well I guess you can as he did but don't be surprised if that court takes exception

      Delete
    10. I have a question - if Windsor buys a domain name of one of his victims, then published a website using the domain, and on the website he repeatedly calls the victim a "gang member", "corrupt", a "stalker", etc., when yet the victim is and has done none of those things, isn't that harassment at the very least?

      If so, then Windsor is using domain names and the www to harass victims, which according to the T.O.S.'s I've read for several domain registrants isn't allowed, yet a court order is needed to remove the domains from Windsor account--according to their legal department(s).

      Anon @ 3:00PM, is this kind of abuse a-okay with you?

      Delete
    11. I am not defending anything. I am just saying that domain names are, by court decisions, considered intellectual property. If he is guilty defamation, then the injured party can bring civil suit and as a remedy the court could order windsor to shutdown the site. Maybe even an injunction to temporarily take down the site. But, a protective order cannot be used to take away someone's property. Or violate any other Constitutionally protected right. What right does a MT judge have to tell me I cannot own firearm if I am living in TX? Maybe that I cannot possess a firearm within that judges jurisdiction, I'll grant that.

      Delete
    12. Pffft! Your legal analysis is deeply, deeply flawed. 1) Domain names are IP, but not when they are purchased for cyber-squatting and harassment purposes. Also, some states consider a domain name based on person's name purchased without authorization to be identity theft . 2) Windsor traveled to Montana and stalked Boushie; that is a matter of fact and law. No long-arms statutes are required here to see Windsor clearly availed himself to ALL of Montana's laws--even the anti-stalking ones. There is no "maybe" about that.

      You can believe this or not: I know of at least two states where additional charges are pending against Mr. Windsor.

      Delete
    13. Not flawed. According APCA it is illegal to squat for harassment purposes. Where you are flawed is in the enforcement. A DA would have to charge/indict someone under APCA or civil suit brought. A protective order striping him of their IP would be a violation of his due process rights.
      If I am a resident of TX a MT judge cannot deny my 2d Amendment right by fiat. Once again..due process.
      Now if the judge order that I could not "possess" a firearm within the confines of that jurisdiction then that is a different story.

      I not trying to defend this guy and I am not saying he is not an extortionist, but, in their attempt to protect others the judiciary has overstepped its authority.

      Everyone is entitled to due process. No one can be denied life or liberty without due process. A protective order is not due process...it is legal device used to protect a person from eminent physical danger not to enforce laws by summary judgement.

      Delete
    14. You are flawed Anon@ 4:26 ...
      Your inane, incorrect argument sounds just like fat Bill's
      And, you can see how that's working out for him.
      You are annoying and I think you're a troll or Snooze ..IMHO !!

      Delete
    15. Very flawed. As I wrote before, and as you can't seem to comprehend, some states have their own statues with respect to anti-stalking and squatting.

      I not trying to defend this guy

      BS! You're a passive-aggressive, SovCit TROLL--but it's not like we haven't seen your ilk here before.

      Delete
    16. Actually Windsor registered those domains under fraudulent terms. He agreed that the usage for the domains would not be for harassment of people according to the registration agreement with ENOM. Now, Getting that enforced will have to take a lawsuit against ENOM to deny him service under a breech of contract because what windsor did was nullify the contracts by registering them the way he did.

      Delete
    17. AnonymousMarch 26, 2015 at 4:45 PM

      OK..here is p-a for you..fucking asshole. You are fuck tard...who doesn't know shitl.
      How is that for P-A?

      If all they can get windsor on is violating a legally flawed protection order then their case is pretty weak.

      Its because of attitudes like yours and AnonymousMarch 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM that this country is going into the toilet of being a fascist police-state.

      You will be whining like a little bitch when they come for you

      Delete
    18. @AnonymousMarch 26, 2015 at 5:18 PM I got no problem w/that. My problem is a MT county judge trying to enforce law via a protection order.

      I read the protection order and I have no problem with 80% of it.
      My problem is with the judge ordering him to relinquish ownership of IP. If windsor violated APCA then prefer charges and indict him with a grand jury. Have a trail, convict him and as part of the sentence then stripe him of ownership.

      2. ordering him not to own firearms...plan and simple this is illegal.
      The judge could have ordered him not to possess any firearms within the confines of the judges jurisdiction. That is fine.

      Delete
    19. OK..here is p-a for you..fucking asshole. You are fuck tard...who doesn't know shitl. How is that for P-A?

      Indeed. Well done! I think you've proved my point completely. As for "knowing shit," you clearly don't know much about the English language, and even less about the facts regarding the case in Montana. In point of fact, the Supreme Court of Montana has already stated their collective opinion on the legality and propriety of the TOP against Windsor.

      Delete
    20. You apparently don't understand the law/laws in Montana, anon@532.
      Nor,do you seem to understand nobody cares what you have a problem with, especially the judge who ordered Billy to relinquish ownership his SB Hate Site.& who has every legal right to enforce the law via a protection order.
      Fat Billy is sitting in jail on his way to prison for "having a problem" with what he claimed like you, is a Illegal PPO, too. .. which seemed to be legal enough that it was recognized by 3 states .. Just Sayin' ...

      Delete
    21. A protective order striping him of their IP would be a violation of his due process rights.

      You should really research Crystal Cox some more. The court took DOZENS of websites from her and turned them over to her victim

      Delete
    22. Jeff, the court did not take any property from Cox as part of a TOP.

      Delete
    23. @Jeff...yes but that was the result of a civil trial...that is due process. Cox got to plead her case to a jury or a panel of judges and the defendants were given the same opportunity. And the jury or panel of judges weighed the evidence and found in favor of the defendants and took the sites away from her.

      A protective order issued by a judge is a one sided affair and is not due process. The opposing side is rarely present at these proceedings and has no say-so in the matter. It is a summary judgement against the person based on someone believing that they are in eminent danger from that person.

      Delete
    24. Ok clearly you have no idea just how much harassment Windsor was impaling on Boushie, how many frivolous appeals, etc. There are certain things you just won't get. You're looking at one part, and you're wrong.

      A Judge ruled that the Hate dot com Windsor owns in Boushie's name, that Windsor claimed was for a TV show, was not for a TV show, but to further harass Boushie. The PPO covered ALL harassment. Do you get that now or not? There was due process, and Windsor got his say, plenty of times throughout the 6 or more cases/appeals he launched.

      If you aren't going to search the court documents--all of them, to know what was said or not, your argument is not valid. You're missing all kinds of key components.

      Delete
    25. @AnonymousMarch 26, 2015 at 6:02 PM You are still an asshole.

      Another example of the judiciary make new laws that are not there. In their ruling the court said everything in the top was fine in accordance with 40-15-201 MCA . Temporary order of protection. If you read the law there is nothing in it about the ability of striping ownership of property unless it is joint property. No mention of stripping an individual of his right to own fire arms. Like I said making law where there is no law.

      Delete
    26. Statist sheeple cheering the end of freedom of speech, ownership of property, the right to keep and bear arms.

      I personally don't give a rat's ass about windsor...but think about it for a minute. If they do it to him..for his vexatious litigation what is going to stop them from doing it to you because you believe something they don't agree with. Part of their judgement is that if he sues a member of the judiciary he has to post 50K bond. Did they provide that protection the the other citizens of MT? No.....

      Delete
    27. And you remain an illiterate troll.

      Another example of the judiciary make new laws that are not there.

      Ironically, your statement (above) is yet another example of your illiteracy and trollishness.



      Delete
    28. Haven't you read up on all of bills "facts"? We are "them". Be afraid, be very afraid

      Delete
    29. Hey, Anon@5:32 ..
      Montana Supreme Court
      Filed: June 10th, 2014
      Status: Precedential
      N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 153
      SEAN BOUSHIE, Petitioner and Appellee,
      v.
      WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Respondent and Appellant
      Citations: 2014 MT 153
      Docket Number: 13-0785
      Nature of suit: Direct Appeal


      ( MCA. The condition barring Windsor from possessing a certain firearm is within what is
      contemplated by § 40-15-201(2)(j), MCA. Finally, the condition requiring Windsor to
      transfer SeanBoushie.com into Boushie’s name and to refrain from posting about Boushie on
      the site is also permissible within § 40-15-201(2)(j), MCA, under the circumstances. The
      District Court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP)

      Delete
  12. That's because of paranoia. It's reigning supreme, don't you know.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Where's the Ellis Seven when you need them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Some days are a real pain just crawling out of your bunk for oatmeal...

      Delete
    3. Ya...that's it...that's the ticket...fly your sorry monkey butt over to sbharbison. She's is a real person and a real paralegal--and by paralegal I mean a person who is legally paralyzed from the neck up.
      Oh wait, Snoozan isn't "laughing her ass off" anymore? I guess she finally figured out that if she did that, she'd have no place to insert her pointed head.

      Delete
    4. She's is --> She's

      Delete
    5. As best as I can tell, and I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure it out:

      A few years back, a realtor named Crystal Cox from Kalispell, MT published a letter to the editor in a local newspaper. Sean Boushie or his wife wrote a letter to the editor disagreeing with her. She responded by getting an attorney and suing them, which is a consistent pattern of her behavior. She has named hundreds of people in her many lawsuits, and, much like Windsor, believes that there is a government conspiracy that has her targeted. Google her name and read some of her writings to get an idea of her personality.

      At some point along the way, Cox made a connection with Windsor, and this, it appears, is when Windsor started his campaign against Boushie. Windsor, now, presents the courts with copies of harassing emails and blog postings that he claims came from Boushie. My theory, although I have no way of proving it, is that some of these emails actually came from Crystal Cox as a way of baiting Windsor to go after Boushie (this is if they were not fabricated by Windsor himself). The tone and content of these emails sounds very much like Cox and not at all like Boushie.

      Others here on this site are more familiar with the history of the case than I am and may be able to provide a better explanation.

      Delete
    6. @small-knife...any idea why cox would go after boushie? He seems to be an average joe (not rich) what would be the pay-off?

      Delete
    7. I think it all traces back to that original letter to the editor. Vexatious litigants, like Windsor and Cox, do not seem to consider whether there is a pay-off or not. Although they may ask for millions of dollars in their lawsuits, their obsession with seeing their own words published in official-looking documents seems to be more important than actually winning anything. Mostly, they want people to agree with them, and the ones who don't become their victims. It's a common trait of people with this type of attention-seeking personality to categorize people into two categories, either very good, or completely evil.

      Delete
    8. Could it be Boushie does not agree with not support SovCitzs & openly stated just that? For some reason that chaffs their tank asses, especially if you point out what shady mf-ers & stalkers they are...
      Just a hunch, though.

      Delete
  14. Update from Missoula

    Just visited the courthouse public computers:

    1) Arraignment rescheduled for tomorrow at 3:00
    2) He now has five charges for violating the TOP, three are felonies
    3) Judge Larson removed himself, a few weeks back, at Windsor's request
    4) Now its a new judge, (I forget his name) he might be a stand-in judge
    5) New judge's order denied Windsor's motion to quash the bench warrant, pretty much because the Supreme Court already agreed that Windsor came to Montana to stalk Boushie
    6) Judge's order reminded Windsor that 114 pages is too many, to keep his briefs to 20 pages or less. And don't try to get around this by including other documents or filing multiple motions about the same thing
    7) No filing of any motions as a means of harassment
    8) Boushie's attorney had the TOP dismissed a few days ago because they believed the standing order of no contact in the criminal case would be adequate protection. So Boushie released his attorney and is now pro se. Unfortunately, he found out from the District attorney that this was not true. Boushie filed a motion yesterday asking the judge to rescind his dismissal of the TOP.
    9) Windsor is pro se, is not represented by an attorney

    I'm sure I'm missing some things. There are a lot of filings and orders to go through. Plus it looks like some of the charges will be addressed by the District court, and some by the lower Justice Court. All the information above is only to the best of my knowledge. Please don't sue me if I am wrong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gold star for you, S-K! I appreciate you and your report.

      [img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxzbeb7RO0buseswYk1KQy4OpTj73eikv2f03OEqlMz05zbnBF[/img]

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the update SK .. Gotta love 5 charges, now!
      Too bad the troll hijacked the blog today with his "illegal PPO" Cox, SB etc crap .. trying to get off topic & divert attention from your very interesting and informative post.

      Delete
    3. @AnonymousMarch 26, 2015 at 6:22 PM whatever..wipe. I trying to understand the dynamics of the case. Nothing I brought up is off topic. If all they have on this guy is violating a faulty PO. Then not much is going to happen to him.

      If he violated ACPA then prosecute him for that. If he came within whatever the distance was of boushie then get him for violating that part of the PO.

      But don't break the law to enforce the law. Everyone (including you and windsor) are entitled to due process. A PO with punitive measures is not legal no matter how much you hate the guy.

      Delete
    4. ^^^^^ Maybe you should withhold your rant until you see what the charges are. Just sayin, the 5 charges they've made public are not all he is charged with.

      Delete
    5. OMG, you dimwit@6:59 ...
      First, the PPO is NOT faulty ...
      Secondly, He violated a legal, standing PPO and is now being charged with felonies and will end up doing time in Montana's Deer Lake prison, more than likey.
      Thirdly, try and keep up, fat Willy has already lied, cried and denied all the crap you're posting today ..and LOST all the way to the freakin' Supreme Court.
      Lastly, A judge has total choice in what he puts into a Stalker's PPO via not only the Domestic Violence laws-PPO's but Internet stalking statutes and laws as well, inc. giving Wily's Hate.com to Sean without involving the ACPA.

      Delete
    6. Anon@6:59

      Supreme Court already decided that the TOP is not faulty. Windsor had the opportunity to appear in court to contest it, and did appear. Windsor's main argument is that the TOP was no longer valid because it was temporary and had expired. But the Supreme Court said that the District Court's extension of the time period was appropriate under state law.

      ACPA has nothing to do with this case because the court order is designed to prevent Boushie from being stalked. It has nothing to do with who has the rights to the domain name.

      Delete
  15. "Greetings again Lawless America participants and supporters. ... He has an excellent attorney, is NOT rep himself."

    Per above, Windsor is acting pro-se. So, either the person who wrote this lied, or they have a SERIOUSLY effed-up definition of "excellent attorney" -- Windsor is certainly not that by any stretch of the imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was Gary aka Sharon Galloway. She loves to pretend she knows what's going on, so lemmings like Cruz talk to her. I personally think she was patting herself on the back with the "Excellent Attorney" comment. Like a joke, because she and Windsor have the same lame sense of humor. It's not funny if no one else gets it.

      Delete
    2. Ohhhh. So Susan is laughing at us because she thinks there are only 5 charges. Can't wait to see if she's still laughing after tomorrow's continuation of Willy's arraignment. The list of charges was so long, they didn't have time to read them all today. LMAO SMH

      Delete
    3. No Snooze, you have NO credibility! You've been caught in yet ANOTHER whopping lie. It won't be long before the 4 or 5 lemmings you chit chat with--shun you like everyone eventually does.

      Delete
    4. AHHH so Snooze uses Billshit semantics. I don't think the lemming will appreciate being tricked into thinking he has an attorney.

      You said "is NOT rep himself." You need to brush up a bit more on your semantics games. Nice try to cover-up your lie. You know the lemming read here...

      Delete
    5. You have no credibility here Snooze. Toodles.

      Delete
    6. You have nothing to tell you mindless idiot.

      Delete
    7. Sharon Galloway has no credibility anywhere. That's why she has to constantly change the name she used while spending every waking moment trolling the Internet looking for someone to talk down to.

      Delete
    8. First of all Gary/Sharon, you didn't admit anything. You said you never said he "hired" an attorney. That your comment that "he has an excellent attorney" was not claiming that he "hired" one. Yet, your next sentence you said he "is NOT rep himself" which indicated he was not pro se.

      You tried to lie--not admit--and now you're trying to cover up again. You suck at being a two faced troll. Go suck on your Nathans and choke.

      Delete
  16. You're full to the brim with shit, Snooze. Try to find some fraction of nuance in that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The great guru Sharon doesn't know how her comments are saved since they get deleted?
    Bwahahahaha!!!
    Any maroon can see the little box at bottom of page to receive email notifications, derrrrrrrrr. HINT: Emails contain entire comments.

    Seriously? She really is just that stupid. Her Willy coulda helped her with that.
    Gesh.
    Poor thang, she's still spun he got transferred, because she just knew that wasn't going to happen! Before that? The Texas case wasn't ever getting dismissed & on & on & on... As her Willy said himself when describing her in court, all while snickering, "Bless her heart".
    Those pesky nuances.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See? Direct from my email:

      Bahahahha 6:55: I love it. Unfortunately no one can check to see if your "pattern" is real because my posts to this blog are deleted.
      There was more, I chose not to bore anyone.

      TaDa Dimwit!

      Delete
    2. LOL, thanks SemperFi Wife. Snooza loser is just so full of 'stuff ' ,and pretty slow on the obvious!

      splashes waves of joy your way!

      Delete
  18. Just a note from a casual reader of this blog.

    If you are going to post your responses to "Snooze"

    It wouldn't hurt to leave her comment up so that the rest of us have a point of reference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea what any of that means.

      Delete
    2. Personally, I don't know why anybody bothers responding to her.

      Delete
    3. Morning MrJeff, hey Ollie~
      Responding to Sharon? Like swatting a gnat, often involuntary...

      Here's a dandy nugget to use as an example, IMO:

      "Personally I get a kick out of how it makes the blog very confusing. Between the fact that none of them have the integrity to take credit for their posts by signing them with a screen name, and the constant deletions, it is hard for anyone new to figure out who is saying what and to whom they are saying it."

      There should bee zero doubt when I comment or who I am. Must be more of those #nuances! I don't have any problems keeping up with what is being discussed & the anons choosing to stay #Anon? Not a big deal to me.

      Happy Friday y'all!
      KMc

      Delete
  19. Just a little flash back as to why someone with a Protection/Restraining order shouldn't have a gun. It's due to veiled threats like this, and Windsor's constant calling anyone he doesn't like "Crazy."
    [IMG]http://i57.tinypic.com/2jczsc0.png[/IMG]

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow. I get focused on work for a day and come back to see all hell has broken loose.

    I'm going to wade in a little on the scope of a protective order arguments. Both sides are right, but for very different reasons. In a temporary protective order ("TPO" - I'm going to use the nomenclature with which I am most familiar), a judge has wide latitude to craft an order protecting the victim from further acts of aggression, including stalking. This can (and often does) include ordering the defendant not to _possess_ a firearm,, to stay a certain distance from the victim, to refrain from contacting a victim, and yes, from posting things about the victim on the internet. These are temporary measures and can be more fully addressed in a followup hearing to determine whether the TPO should become a permanent protective order ("PPO").

    This type of state protective order, even from a "lowly" county judge, is generally enforceable not only throughout the state in which it was entered, but also in most, if not all, other states dues to various statutes in which the States have agreed to recognize one another's TPOs and PPOs. Texas' statute is located at Tex.Fam.Code §§ 88.101 et al.

    The logic behind this is simple: say Joe stalks Betty in Montana, and Montana grants Betty a PPO. Two days later, Betty travels to Ellis County, Texas, to visit her dying grandmother. The fact Betty has a Montana TPO shouldn't mean Joe has free reign to stalk and harass Betty in Texas until she goes and gets a Texas TPO. So, yes, a protective order issued by one state can be enforced by others.

    Now, as to the questions of barring Bill from owning a firearm and forcing him to turn over the domain names. Here, I agree the law is a little murky. Certainly a person whose Constitutional rights to own property (whether in the form of a firearm or an internet domain) is entitled to due process of law. What the guy yesterday failed to realize is that Bill has already had due process of law in this instance. The Montana court issued a TPO (ex parte, IIRC), and set a hearing to determine whether it should become permanent. Bill did not attend that hearing. His failure to attend (and notice was sent to his address -- I believe Bill's claims to the contrary to be dubious at best) allowed the TPO to become a PPO. At that point, Bill was severely restricted in his remedies. That's the key -- the second hearing afforded Bill due process, but he chose to ignore it.

    A similar thing happened a couple of years ago in Alabama, and also involved an internet blogger (whose creepiness, IMHO, rivals Bill's). The blogger, Roger Shuler, published some statements on his blog which, if untrue, were almost certainly defamatory and slanderous. The statements involved allegations that Governor Bob Riley's son had impregnated a woman and paid for an abortion. Both the governor's son and the woman vigorously denied the allegation and filed suit against Shuler for defamation.

    To be continued . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (cont.) In the suit, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction and obtained banning Roger Shuler from publishing statements about them on the internet. The Court's order also required Shuler to remove the defamatory statements from his blog, and sealed the case file. Frankly, in the opinion of many legal experts, the Judge's order violated the First Amendment, free speech provisions of the Alabama constitution, and Alabama procedural requirements on the sealing of case files. Roger should have, and could have gotten this unconstitutional order thrown out had he properly fought it (and appealed it).

      Roger didn't. Like Bill, he refused to acknowledge the Court's order (apparently, when served with the court papers while in his car, he threw them out his window). He also failed to appear at several of hearings. The court found him in contempt and put him in jail for several months until he complied with the (unconstitutional) order.

      Throughout this ordeal, Shuler continually refused (free) legal assistance from free speech groups, the ACLU, the public defender's office, and others. He was, in this legal fight, his own worst enemy.

      Based on reports of his behavior, Shuler was apparently convinced that the Court was against him because of the Judge's political connections. He insulted the judge (in chambers, if I recall correctly) and certainly online. He denied the Court's having jurisdiction over him, and presented no evidence or arguments at the permanent injunction hearing. All of this sound familiar?

      Shuler, like WIndsor, lost the opportunity to protect his rights because, like Windsor, he failed to fight for them. He failed to make _proper_ legal arguments and preserve issues for subsequent appeal. He could have done so. Due process was afforded him, and he declined to be involved.

      Delete
    2. (cont.) Windsor is quite similar to Roger (Shuler was also apparently a vexatious pro se litigant in his own right). He could have appeared before the Court at the PPO hearing, but elected not to appear. He could have filed a motion to reconsider and approached the court rationally (and set up arguments for a subsequent appeal). Instead, he decided the Order was void for various reasons and refused to properly fight for his rights. He has now likely lost them.

      The question in his upcoming case will not necessarily be whether the PPO is appropriate or not. Bill's failure to properly fight for his rights has probably defeated his ability to challenge the order either on appeal (as demonstrated by the Montana Supreme Court's decision) but also through collateral attack in other courts. Instead, while appropriateness of the terms of the PPO will play a small part in the proceedings, they will probably be overshadowed by the larger question of whether he should be held in contempt not only for violating the order, but flagrantly and repeatedly violating it. It seems highly unlikely a jury will side with Bill on that issue.

      Anyway, sorry for the long winded post(s). Things like this, however, are why I find this area of law so fascinating.

      Back to trial prep.

      P.S. The reason many of us will not use our actual name and contact information on here is not cowardice, but wisdom. We have little desire for either us individually and/or our families to be drawn into some pro se vexatious litigant's frivolous lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive to fight and, frankly, draining.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your post, Mr Spkr! Very interesting.

      Delete
    4. One of the most lucid post on the subject that I have seen.

      Thanks

      Delete
    5. Exactly. At this point, its really no longer about the original charges. Instead of trying his case on facebook as he ran from justice as a fugitive, Bill should have gone up there to MT immediately when the charges first came down and made his case as to why they are not valid.

      Like they say, the cover up is usually much worse than the original crime...that is the case here. While Bill and his followers continue to focus on the original charges......the elephant in the room is what all he did after he was released from jail in TX. He was given the opportunity for due process and decided to run and hide instead. That will be what hangs him in the end

      Delete
    6. Windsor may have been better off sticking with the freedom of speech angle from the beginning. However his arguments would probably have failed. Had he only made a few online comments, maybe he could have won. Instead, he traveled across the country and went to Boushie's house and office wearing a bullet-proof vest.

      Montana judges have a tradition of "looking at the whole picture." They aren't going to let someone like Windsor use freedom of speech or domain ownership as a tool or excuse for harassment. I know of another recent case in District Court in Missoula where the defendant in a civil case was ordered to remove a website set up to defame the attorney for the plaintiff. The defendant in this case, like Windsor, set up a series of blogs and claimed a civil conspiracy among the judges, mayor, police chief, and many many others.

      Windsor did appear in the Municipal Court and had the opportunity to state his case against the original TOP, but then failed to show up for a following hearing. About that same time is when he started appealing the case to the higher courts. Maybe that's why he chose not to appear.

      Delete
    7. Yea and that concept of big picture could be especially troubling for bill. The DA could easily show that this stalking and harassing behavior of bills is anything but an isolated incident. Mrs Oversteet comes to mind as the most obvious.

      Delete
    8. S-K,

      Wow...you may be small, but you're very sharp (pun intended)! Thank you for your posts; I have enjoyed reading them and they have been very informative.

      You write so well and have such a grasp on the law, I would guess you are either an attorney or have legal training.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    9. he would had been arrested in michigan on the sole basis of wearing a flak jacket at someones house and or on campus harassing people.

      Delete
    10. @1227 ... I'm surprised when he was in Mi. trying to get a bogus PPO against SF, that he wasn't arrested for being seen with Marty Prehn ... Lol !

      Delete
    11. You forgot about the "TV" on the back of his flak jacket made with white gaffer tape. He claimed he was working on a television pilot, but more accurate would be the abbreviation for "Terribly Vindictive or Vexatious."

      Delete
    12. Thanks, MrSpkr .. as always you are very informative.

      Delete
    13. One question Mr. Spkr: "The Montana court issued a TPO (ex parte, IIRC), and set a hearing to determine whether it should become permanent. Bill did not attend that hearing. ... That's the key -- the second hearing afforded Bill due process, but he chose to ignore it."

      According to everything I have on file, there was never any hearing to extend the TOP. In fact, the district court specifically stated it didn't think a hearing was necessary, even though the statute requires a hearing.

      Delete
    14. I'm not Mr. Spkr, but it is my understanding that when Windsor was served on campus with the TOP, he immediately (before the hearing) filed an appeal, instead of going to the hearing first, which sent the whole TOP into the SC ruling. It is up to the courts discretion to cancel or extend it, which they did-- due to the facts in the case. Then, Windsor launched several more appeals, all with the same outcome. (Windsor has a habit of filing appeals before rulings which is probably why he always loses. Along with this, it shows exactly how vindictive, frivolous and vexatious he really is.)

      Windsor continually kept trying to turn an appeal into a civil case. Filing hundreds of pages of crap, drives, affidavits, etc. None of that is even relevant in an appeal, yet, in the World according to Windsor, more is better.

      Thus, the final ruling "The District Court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP."

      Just because Windsor likes to play games with the courts, doesn't mean his right were violated. HE does this to himself, because he is uncontrollable, doesn't play by the rules, doesn't follow court procedures, and is blinded by his need for revenge, harassment, and vindictiveness.
      (As another example of this, in his MOM case, he signed an order, that the case was over--then turned around and "Voided" it in his head, and launched numerous other cases. You can't trust Windsor or his word, because he is a liar)

      Delete
    15. As always, thank you @MrSpkr, @SecondChair, @Attorney (swoon) & the other members of the legal field that share here. Much appreciated.

      Delete
    16. You could always email Susan/Snooze/Gary/Sharon ...
      BAHAHAHAHAH ...
      I can't believe the lemmings ( the remaining 4) still can't comprehend she is deliberately giving Fat Willy ( her crush) bad advice so he stays jailed & she is the new LA leader. Damn what a pea-brained party of four they are.

      " Gary Winston -To the new guy on Joey that is talking about the numerous unlawful provisions of the MT TOP against Bill. I see you have a lot of questions. If you would like an objective report, write me at sbharbison@gmail.com.
      9 hrs · Like "

      Delete
    17. "...and by objective, I mean the from the perspective of inside my own ass."

      Sincerely yours,

      S. B. Harbison, a completely real and non-anonymous name.

      Delete
    18. To the new guy on Joey

      New guy? Make that troll.

      Delete
    19. Nah, "Susan Harbison" is her fake name.

      Delete
    20. OK, Thank you .. I thought it kinda looked liked her Sharon Galloway ( can GS or Ollie remove my link above)

      Delete
    21. Nope. You're wrong you stupid cow. Look up Judge Townsend's ruling 9/11/2013 and MCA 40-15-302. In fact, check out the Montana Supreme's order (DA 13-0785, 4/2/2014).

      Delete
    22. Note: Anon@10:25 was in response to one of Snoozan's late nite troll droppings citing MCA 40-15-202 and asserting there were "adequate grounds to claim his (Windsor's) rights were violated."

      Delete
  21. Yes, Mr Spkr, a good read. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yup...like the "Leave it to Beaver" episode where the Beav looses his sweater then tries to cover it up. On the other hand, Billy is more like Larry Mondello in girth and demeanor (and Billy really knows how to put the MEAN in demeanor).

    ReplyDelete
  23. bill is finally starting to get that media coverage he always craved. Next up....that jury trial he has been after all his life

    http://www.montanainquirer.com/news/montana/suspect-booked-on-multiple-counts/16162558.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.facebook.com/MontanaMugshots
      Unfortunately, the link they provide on their FB, doesn't have his mugshot yet.

      Delete
    2. Seems to overlook that whole government conspiracy/Twitter thing...

      Delete
    3. I could possibly be mistaken, but it appears to me that that article (along with many others on the site) was written by a robot.

      Delete
    4. [IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/2pzjtqb.jpg[/IMG]

      Delete
    5. I agree. It appears to be a News Aggregator site.

      Delete
    6. TVOII a big big Anti-Government News/Media site with a whopping 50 members has Billy's back, Rosie ..don't worry ..LOL !!!
      https://www.facebook.com/TheVoiceofIdaho

      ( Rosie Johnson - Thank you! Can you get someone to interview Bill Windsor of Lawless America? He is in the Montana jail -- for exposing government corruption. Thanks and God bless you.)

      Delete
    7. Rosie Johnson needs to do her research if she's a real "News" site, instead of simply reposting Windsor's own bias articles. Everyone knows he's in jail for violating a TOP, AND being a fugitive. Still trying to spin this into another "Anti-Government--we must take over plot" Makes me yack!

      Dude broke the law, now he must answer. Period. There is no "Conspiracy" here. Simply a man on a mission to mislead people, get them supporting him, and flaming hatred of the Government.

      Delete
    8. Yup, TVOI wants to interview SF ..HAHAHAHHAH
      "The Voice of Idaho .. TVOI
      Very interesting Mr.Fleming
      We wish to interview you and we are sure with such strong statement this will be a grand opportunity to state your case."

      Delete
    9. Hey ASSWIPES@TVOI .. Mr.Fleming already "stated" his case in a Texas courtroom and WON ..
      Geez ... buy a clue .. You uninformed, AMATURE wannabe anti-gov't news source ASSWIPES!!!!

      Delete
    10. Invite the crazies on your show, SF.

      Delete
  24. Good lemmings!! Keep passing the Billshit excuses.

    "Brandia Taamu-- http://apps.co.missoula.mt.us/JailRoster/ChargesDetail... Bill is in jail in Missoula Montana for being a felony tweeter

    "Rebecca McLaughlin-- Thank you Brandia Taamu."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hour and a half to go time!!! Think Ill hit the ox for a beer afterward, I'm gonna need it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any people going in person, to watch and report?

      Delete
    2. Raises hand~~~~~

      Delete
    3. Sweet!! Thank you!

      Delete
  26. I have watched this blog for a while. While it is somewhat entertaining, a lot of participants here seem to miss the point. The crime Windsor is accused of is violating a protective order. If he did, then he's guilty of that crime, but 99% of the accusations of the posters here revolve around things that Windsor says that they don't like. These do not appear to be crimes. Certainly unpopular and revolting from the perspective of the posters here, but no crime that I can see.

    And all of the attorneys posting here under anonymously? Man up will you? If you are so scared of Bill Windsor calling you a name that you have to hide behind an anonymity shield, your statements do not deserve any credibility.

    No, I am not a "troll" or "leming" , but I am speaking my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "somewhat entertaining"? Pffft.....come on now I crack myself up. I was wondering when we began defining a blog by the comments posted on it?

      Delete
    2. Anon@3:42 IMHO ... You are both a Troll & Lemming trying to hijack the blog with your moronic opinions like you did yesterday.
      Go away, we have Big Fun coming up & popcorn to share as the former FUGITIVE (charge you seem unaware of) is charged with even more crimes. Now scaddle like a good rejected troll so I can share my popcorn & watch the show.

      Delete
    3. Anon 3:42? Eat shit & fall way back.
      How about I send some freaky 'documentary filmmaker' to circle your home for weeks & months, snapping pics of your kids, you, your elderly relatives, your friends, co-workers? Or? Buy your domain name & make up wild tales about what you've supposedly done?
      If you believe Windsor is anything other than a stalking POS, scam artist, that's only past time is to play ProSeBaby across the nation for decades?
      You're a blithering idiot.
      And? There is no argument. The freaky POS lurked around my husband's fresh grave. That is some sick shit, no matter how you sling it. What kinda documentary was he filming exactly? Do tell!
      Windsor should spend the remainder of his life in prison for ALL he's done to dozens of individuals & their families. The Boushies & Overstreets got the most doses of his maniacal obsession, for their sakes, I hope he lives a long time locked away, far from any semblance of society.
      Kellie McDougald

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Attorney.

      Delete
    5. No sweat, Counselor. I think the practitioners who comment here do our profession proud.

      For the record, "commener" was a typo for "commenter," not (heh!) "commoner"....

      Delete
    6. " Eat shit & fall way back. "

      I love that.

      Cheers, Kelly

      Delete
    7. I'll go one further, Jeff. William Michael Winkopp Windsor comes near me or my family, living or deceased, ever again? I'll make certain he eats loads of his own shit.
      He's 'in fear' of me. & so many others? Pffffft! He should keep his tankass away from me, mine & those others or he'll find out what real fear is, in a hurry.
      No, that is not a threat, or an ultimatum, it's a #PROMISE.
      I've had all of Winkopp/Windsor I'm EVER going to take, ever & I am 100% certain that the State of Texas is sick of his goofy, Vextacious, criminal, tax wasting, panties in wad bs, too.

      Seriously? Make it a double on the eat shit. Gesh. Freaking maroons.

      By the way? Winkopp/Windsor owes Flemming a shit ton of money & meabout $23,000 as of today. If he's got money on his commissary account? Or on any other accounts? I'm seizing my portion of it.
      A millionaire he is & refuses to pay his debts or his taxes! Pussy ass bitch all the way around, no matter how you sling it, shit just the same.
      I sincerely hope his family & 'friends' are proud of him. I'm never going away & I'm NOT backing down. Ever. The slimey bastard couldn't look me or my sons in the eye in person, but give the Billbitch a computer or smartphone & he morphs into Billy Badass, pffffffft, again & an eyeroll.
      Wendy? Ryan? Barbara? Cheryl, Tony? All of you Windsors? This is your mess, y'all have been enabling him or too scared he'd cut your money source off, pick one, or both. Reel him in & get busy cleaning up on several aisles across the USA.
      And? Y'all have managed to piss off Disney, too? What a tribe of #winners. #Disney! Who screws over Disney? Alcatraz will, just like they own domains for thousands of private individuals, hundreds of judges & Lord knows who all else!

      BitchBill has my address, make the cashier's check out to #KellieMcDougald & don't delay.
      I tend to get really nasty when I havta wait. I have much more I can start sharing anytime now, too. And? I'm going to, don't doubt me for a second. I'd had empathy for his family all this time, until it was brought to my attention how much some were assisting him. Pay me & keep y'all's BitchBill trash on a choke chain from now on or I'll be #sharing some #dandy truths about the whole damn clan. I've had over a year to dig, don't think y'all don't have some tidbits to toss. Capiche?

      KellieMcDougald

      Delete
    8. Insulated by money, or so they thought. I'm gonna predict right now that the karma train will continue to follow the members of this family, one by one.

      Delete
    9. The Manson's are still trying to cling to alternate history it appears:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz_Media

      Delete
    10. Didn't they try to say that Alcatraz Media and Alcatraz tours were two separate companies, not owned by Ryan--on one of the RipOff reports? This is funny...
      "Alcatraz Media, Inc. is a North American web-based software company and travel agency. "

      Now, surely they can claim what they do isn't "illegal" but I think there is a fine line in misrepresenting to customers who think they are buying direct, and will get refunded. It seems that Ryan is just as shady and scummy as Daddy, when it comes to "business" dealing and screwing people over. They have a warped moral sense of entitlement, where they believe they can profit off of screwing people over.

      On a technicality they have made tons of money, pissing people off everywhere they go. Having a monopoly on ticket domain names, to steer ticket traffic to them, (thanks to Google help) instead of direct purchases may not be against the law, but it's not an honest living. Hopefully sometime soon though, that karma train will come barreling down the tracks and take Ryan, Barbara, Tony, and all the other Windsor/Winkopp's "good" fortune away. It's just not ethical, moral, or in good faith they way they work.

      Delete
    11. ***barf warning*** watch the video
      http://cmitsolutions.com/success-stories/ryan-windsor-ceo-alcatraz-media/

      Delete
    12. As I said earlier, I'd had great empathy for his family. I tied to imagine dealing with William as a family member.... Pffffffft. They're woven tighter than Egyptian Cotton sheets.
      It did not bother William Michael Winkopp Windsor to do horrid things to anyone & their families. Not once. I do believe that his family should get an equal dose of what others' have had.
      Pay up. Keep your trash from wasting OUR tax monies. An keep your creep away from society. Real simple. This is not rocket science. Surely, somewhere amongst the entire clan, they gather at least some gumption. I'm thinking if William should ever get out? He should shack up with Wendy, since she's so determined to assist him. He definitely needs round the clock supervision.
      They're all vile, as I now see.
      The ONLY ones that have any visible scruples? The offspring that forbid their children from EVER being near William. There is/was a very valid reason. Good for them as parents. Protecting your kids comes first.

      Read it numerous times Winkopp/Windsors. I own every word. Let your William dink with me or mine ever again & I can guarantee y'all ain't ever seen legal shit hit the fan or the www.
      Mr Flemming is past due to be paid, too.
      Y'all really should compensate Ms Overstreet & any & everyone y'all idly watched your William attack for years, as y'all did nothing. NOTHING, but cower down.
      Nasty nasty people. Money can't fix what ails y'all, obviously.

      Delete
    13. Watched the Alcatraz video above and listened to Ryan--almost fell asleep like in Bill's videos...and the one thing that struck me, is that he says his agents have to load the pages of the places people are asking about buying tickets to. Basically, those sales agents have NO fricken clue about the tours, what they offer or not, when people ask questions--so they themselves have to go to the direct site. HA! Ironic hu? They make money by diverting internet traffic to their site--away from the actual sites, then THEY have to go to that site themselves to look shit up!

      No wonder people are so irked when they plan their vacations, then come to find out the crap Ryan's company told them, wasn't true--and the people can't get their money back from the direct company because Alcatraz et al (plethora of other names used linked to them) doesn't have contracts with them, and then Alcatraz plays stupid and won't return their money either.

      I have read some of Ryan's responses to complaints and he's the spittin image of Bill. Uses excuses, and then blames the complaining party. Apple...tree...one in the same!

      Delete
  27. Anon@3:42 - regarding anonymity....

    How did I become a victim of Bill Windsor? I was foolish enough to have fallen for his then-fancy website and "documentary" film plan, so I volunteered to help coordinate his film subjects when he was heading to my state. But, without any vetting whatsoever, Dottie sent me a confidential list if "film subjects", and I found that suspicious since I've been involved in activism and politics for a long while, and never had I encountered a "group" or a claimed "legitimate organization" which took ZERO care in ensuring that their volunteers were on the up & up.

    With that, I immediately sent Windsor a message to tell him that I was withdrawing on my offer, and the reason why.

    Well that earned me one of his Cease & Desists demands, followed by him naming in his rants, threats of suits, and then he registered my name as a domain name and published a website using the domain where he calls me a "gang member".

    REALLY? Yes, really.

    What's my chosen form of self-defense? It was (and still is) to not only provide details of Windsors several decades of suing dozens and dozens and dozens of people, and harassing them online and in person, but also to provide evidence of how he goes about his carnival barking, search engine manipulation, and now, his multiple arrests.

    Those who chose to post anon - well, given Windsor's history, I'd say they're being smart, and smart is a great thing.

    And lastly - you posting anon while complaining about others posting anon is petty at best.

    Stacy Emerson
    www.LifeInPierceCounty.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When life deals you lemmings, make lemming-aide? Might require adding a lot of sugar.

      Delete
    2. As always, well said, @Stacy! Thank you for ALL you do!

      Delete
    3. Wow. He really wants people to fear him. Must be compensating for some manlihood deficiency.

      Delete
    4. Human deficiency...no 'man' slithers around in the dark, lurking after single mothers & their kids. Nor do 'men' have to stoop blow sea level to wander the nation spreading hate, claiming their family has turned their collective backs on him, whining about his deep love for his grandchildren, blah blah blah puke, repeat.
      This freak is an attention white that never did an honest days' work in his life & was never told no. After 6 plus decades? He actually thought he could:should be entitled to do whatever crossed his aging warped mind. He better be eating some brain food off that commissary & sneaking some Wheaties. He stays incarcerated, he's gonna need both. He gets released & makes another attempt at this bitch? He's really gonna need to double down & best buy his tankass a drone.
      I'm proud of being an American that is patriotic & I'm beyond paid up to my nation & my home state of Texas.
      Sovereign POS such as Windsor & his idiots are simply treasonist, domestic terrorists, leeches upon society. They don't like this country, The United Stayes of Anerica? Or how the laws/judicial system works? They should promptly GTF out of this nation without delay. Or? Work within the law to change things. Being Sovereignty NuckFutz defies doing things the correct way, hence their blithe on our nation.
      I do believe some within the Sovereign movement chose & used Windsor as their bitch, simply because of his vast wealth. He's been nothing but a disappointment to them, failing miserably repeatedly.
      It'd be terrifying to just be Windsor at this point, knowing what could be laying in wait for him in prison. Or, if he ever does see the free light of day? Some of those Sovereign folks that are hardcore & not nearly as pampered as Windsor that he totally blew off along his Vexi vendetta path? *shudder* Which fate would be really be the worse? Then? He can stir into his own creatively made mix, the #LE agencies in numerous states he made wordy swipes at, as he fled into hiding bond jumping, the out of control lawsuit frenzies & his umpteen Appeals. Windsor has a very shitty future ahead. That? makes me simply giddy with glee!
      In the grand scheme of things, Windsor's 66 year existence thus far is laughable, as vile as it has been, it is a humongous comedy of clusterferbuffles, wasted time, poofed fortunes he didn't earn & a legacy any descendent would attempt to hide from. That's my view from perfectly free porch swing this Palm Sunday morning~

      Delete
    5. My phone's autocorrect is on a tare this morning, I apologize. Y'all get my drift though.
      Sunshine! Get y'all some if you can! It's glorious already in Kemp, Tx!
      As @ ℗ would say, "waving"!

      Delete
  28. Bond amount changed on Violation Of A Protective Order - 3rd Offense - Felony to $5,000.00 Cash/Surety

    ReplyDelete
  29. An anon telling other people to "man up?"

    That's such a potent hypocrisy serum we're all at risk to become very ill with irony-poisoning.

    I still think there's some stuff Windsor never mentioned regarding what went on in Montana. And for him not to mention it, when he proudly displays unadulterated stalking behavior while wearing a goddamn bullet-proof vest, it has to be pretty awful.

    Let's wait for the charges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't believe they reduced it to $5000.00. He still has the Fugitive/no bail out of Texas, I'm guessing.

      Delete
  30. Where's Bill?: https://youtu.be/i5gBSg6dOVk

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh MaryD SHUT UP!! If you're talking about Windshit, HE chose not to show up to the hearing--and filed an appeal instead, which gave the court jurisdiction to affirm the TOP and extend it. Numerous times. HE could have gone to the hearing and argued the case, but HE DIDN'T. It's all on HIM!!

    IF you're talking about yourself, perhaps that is when you HUNG UP on the court? Your ON LINE court orders explain WHY your temporary order was made permanent. YOU ARE A LOON and SO IS WINDSHIT!!

    "Mary Deneen-- MT TOP have? a) an expiration date; b) a penalty clause; c) without due process, denied rights to confront and cross-examine the Petitioner; and, d) a non-witnessed arrest, without Miranda Rights?"

    ReplyDelete
  32. So, when judge Larson removed himself a few weeks back, he invited other judges to take the case. Judge James Haynes, from Hamilton, MT, is apparently the new judge. He is very familiar with Windsor's antics. Haynes is the judge who denied Crystal Cox's request for a restraining order against Boushie back in 2013.

    Would you believe that Judge Haynes has his own website?

    http://judgejamesahaynes.com/

    I was unable to attend the hearing yesterday. Can anyone who was there report on what happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of bills strategy to judicial immunity, slander every judge in the nation and say they are biased

      Delete
    2. The jailed Mr.Windsor made him a Facebook page too.
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Judge-James-Haynes-Ravalli-County-Expose/160200584174974?fref=nf

      Delete
    3. Indeed, GS. We watched this play out in Texas. He'd purchased Judge Bob Carroll's domain at the least, a year or more prior to filing in THAT court, KNOWING all the while, he already planned to blast lies about Judge Carroll.
      He's purchased every sitting judge's domain & those of their staffs', as well. Add in DAs, State Prosectors, their spouses & on & on. I would not be surprised one bit to see the ownership of every State official in Montana already has a domain purchased by Winkopp/Windsir under the umbrella of Alcatraz.
      That? Is stealing someone's name, for no other purpose than to harass,slander & attempt to intimidate them. Winkopp/Windsor has been at the helm of this creepy maneuver for nearly a decade.
      Remind me again about who is #lawless? Or refresh us all the Alcatraz companies' administrative members.
      That? Is this familiy's 'way of doing business'. Repeat, such an upstanding group of folks.
      MunchenMaryD fits right in, as does Marlene/Julia, Sharon Galloway:Gary Windton, Lynn Maris, etc, these are Alcatraz potential executive material. At least they're vocal in their support. They don't hide like his millionaire relatives.

      Delete
  33. Snoozie is busy as a bat with rabies frantically trying to spread her evil venom all over her fat incarcerated Crush's FB wall .. hoping the 4 remaining dimwitted lemmings will be stupid enough to lap up her bullshit.
    God, what a evil, butthurt bitch.. she is.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've known Bill for a longer period than many have been alive on this blog. I also believe he is a rascal. What I can't understand is on that lawsuit in TX last year, he was suing over a thousand people, mixing in former employees, government officials, etc. was all of his lawsuit about libel? How does a person group a thousand people together, and you don't have the identy of 95% of them into a lawsuit? Who said what, what was libel, wouldn't it take years to find the IP addresses of all these people and examine their emails and computers, and who would pay for that? Tracking down over a thousand people and getting subpoenas for all of their laptops, phones, etc., I can't figure that out, or if its ever been done?

    That would cost millions to do if you could, who would pay that bill? Am I missing anything, I'm older and maybe the answer is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hell no, it's never been done! It was goofiest shit ever throwed on paper & into a courthouse. Hands down the goofiest shit ever.
      By the way? Condolences on you're knowing him longer than 52 years, that does suck...
      Anyway, that what his sorry ass does. He's literally a stalker in every context of the term. He'd chosen a small rural community/county that he already knew was overworked, overwhelmed, understaffed. What he did not do? He did not know who is who, what they may or may not have said. And? What was commented 99.999%? Was THE TRUTH. It's still the truth. What Windsor did not realize either, in his choosing of who to attention to drag off in his Vexi hole, who'd bow up to him. He was given GREAT lenienacy & lots of wiggle room, more than he was entitled. He still failed. That's? Failing? Is what he does the very best.

      Delete
    2. NO need to apologize, SFW. Why, some of the autocorrects are inspired. For example, from your 7:55 post:

      Nor do 'men' have to stoop blow sea level to wander the nation spreading hate.

      The notion Butthurt Billy "stoop blows" is pretty accurate (and funny).

      Delete

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