"Supervisory Control is appropriate in this matter because the DC’s orders [Exhibits-14-19] are clear mistakes of law and are in direct conflict with precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, this Court, and MCA, and if uncorrected, will cause insignificant injustice."
I really couldn't agree with Bill more on this. Bill goes on to set the stage of just how high the stakes are in his upcoming trial next month:
"A gross injustice will occur if Windsor is wrongly required to defend against the
same criminal charges a second time."
You might ask....what the hell is he talking about? And yes that is what a sane person would ask, but let me try and translate the very much insane Bill Windsor for you. "If the jury convicts me I will be forced to appeal that decision which could result in another trial on the same charges.....I call that double jeopardy and I read where it’s illegal". Bill goes on to complain that a guilty verdict....along with the humiliation he will suffer may also result in making it hard for him to obtain handguns to protect himself against his stalking targets in the future. Again we can hear Jefferson rolling over in his grave in Columbia Missouri.
This trial has also forced Bill to work hard and endure stress. Never mind that he denied any public defender help, and let’s also try and forget that he denied all offers of settlement from the DA which would have dropped all charges.
As we have seen Bill take on the role of defendant, judge, DA and jury all at the same time, he now has employed a new, not so creative, writing tactic in his motions......he now suggests the answers
I. Is 40-15-201, MCA, which describes the relief available in an ex parte TOP, unconstitutionally overbroad or vague? Suggested Answer: Yes.
II. Is 40-15-302, MCA, which automatically extends the term of a TOP during an appeal to a DC, unconstitutional because it results in deprivation of a Respondent’s right without a hearing for as long as 546 days? Suggested Answer: Yes.
Ohhh this looks like fun.......can we play?
Question: If Susan says my argument is legally sound can it actually stand up in a court of law? Suggested answer is No
Question: If I keep saying the TOP is void enough times despite what the courts have repeatedly ruled......can I make it so? Suggested answer is please see a mental health professional immediately
Basically we can sum up Bill's entire argument as this: it’s unconstitutional to legally mandate that Bill Windsor does anything, and furthermore it’s also a pointless endeavor as Bill will not abide by the ruling anyway. So judge Windsor has declared the whole thing moot as it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and frivolous in nature. Hmmmmm, I wonder where he came up with that type of verbiage?