Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Bill Windsor Phones It In

After a string of embarrassing defeats in both Michigan and Missouri, Bill is desperate for some good news in the form of a favorable ruling in the legal world.  Yesterday, his attention turned to his show trial in California of Facebook.


It looks like Bill knew this was doomed as the coward didn't even show up to the lawsuit he created. But then again, showing up in court these days runs a high risk of contempt for Bill. Facebook's attorney Julie Schwartz had been schooling Bill in her legal briefs before the court and he was clearly scared of facing her mono y mono in front of a judge. So he phoned it in.

Judge Foiles gave Bill 10 days to do the unthinkable.....get leave in accordance with Thrash's order in order to proceed. At this point you can just hear that phone vibrating as the crazy man on the other end of it starts screaming out "THAT ORDER IS VOID!!!!!!". As always, he can't get leave, his lawsuits are frivolous, in fact he is incapable of filing anything but. I guess he can kiss his dream goodbye of taking a slice of Facebook's "multi-billion dollar" pie. And, once again, Bill is legally destroyed in court by a female attorney which is especially rough on someone like him. Now Bill's vexi tour of frivolous lawsuits in Cali, MT, SD, KS, MO, MI, and TX is now just down to TX where the State motto is "Don't Mess With Texas". Its probably time to find another hobby as nationwide vexatious litigant isn't working out too well.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Everyone is Out to Get Bill

First it was Google, then Craigslist, Ripoff Report, the AMPPS, the Joeys, Facebook, now its Ma Bell who is out to get Windsor.  AT&T through its Yahoo email site has pulled the plug on Bill's nobodies account. And of course that means they must be in on the conspiracy too.  Maybe this is all part of Judge Thrash's plan.  Bill sees $$$$ in his eyes as he continues to add muliti-billion dollar companies to his lawsuit roster. His cable provider better watch out as they may be next in line after a late night infomercial "lures" Bill into buying a knife that can cut through shoes.

Then again, maybe there is a simple explanation.  Maybe enemy of the State Bill Windsor really is the horrible person everyone says he is.  He did violate the terms of service and has been justifiably shut down....the better question is how was he able to use those conduits for his stalking and terrorist activities all that time?

Bill is also back to bashing Facebook as he claims to have received a message from their legal counsel:

"Then today, I received an email from the attorney for Facebook saying: " an active Facebook user you have agreed to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which provides in part that Facebook may stop providing all or part of Facebook if you violate the letter or spirit of the Statement or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for Facebook."

Now the first question is.....if Bill Windsor said it, can it be true?  I would maintain that its not possible. We have read, through court documents, just how these email exchanges go between FB's legal team and Bill. Just about every email he sends is laced with several scurrilous tirades followed by more threats. 
Facebook's attorney's respond with a professional, tempered and topic specific response.  But more to the point....why would Facebook continue to allow this monster to operate a page?  He is already suing them, while using their very service to slander and defame the company to his fellow zombies.  Case in point, he is currently using FB for some kind of countdown till Friday with bloody red background that could be construed as a threat for violence.

All of this is simply another attempt to distract his followers from his utter failure.  Even now they are sounding off their praise for their F├╝hrer, as they thank him for all that he has done (none of them can list one single tangible result, however).  But this little foray into his made up Lawless America world is only a brief exit from reality....and reality has pushed him into a corner he can not escape.  Even a slightly sane person would give up at this point knowing when he was beaten, but Bill has lived his evil life on not taking no for an answer so we can expect him to continue his hopeless endeavour of being a 65 and 2/10ths year old bully.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Windsor Again Gets Caught With His Hands in the Cookie Jar

And the hits keep coming.  In the same week that he takes a true beatdown from the Federal Court in Montana, Bill then takes another blow out in California this time from the attorney for Facebook. After Bill played games with FB's demur motion, Julie Schwartz did the most damaging thing anyone could do to Bill....she made that court aware of his horrific past.  Thats right, she Thrashed him:

Uh Oh, Bill got caught with his dirty hand in the cookie jar once again.  He tried to play the same game in Cali as he did in Texas by sending a letter and assuming that no response means a yes.  Well that dog wont hunt and now they are filing an exparte order, and it was granted, to obtain the leave he never got.  The emails from Schwartz to Bill serve as the perfect example of who and what Bill is.  He is a liar and a bully.  He says the Thrash order is void and he will provide proof....but never does.  Of course the order is very much not void despite what he and his partner in crime "susan" claim it to be.  Bill's little game of semantics between "seek leave" and actually obtaining leave are exposed.  His third grade antics won't work here.

Another interesting thing to come out is Bill demands, in the email exchange, that Schwartz tell him who it was that alerted her to the GA order.  How dare she, or someone else bring up his paper terrorist history into this case.

The irony is that just like in the Texas case where Bill played this sneaking little "if you don't say no that means yes" game with a letter to the Federal Judge in that district, the FB case now backfires on him as he has already demonstrated to the court in California the exact behavior that mandated the ruling in the first place.  Had he gone in and obtained actual leave right off the bat...before anyone really knew who this monster was, he might have pulled it off similar to what he did in MO and KS. But as always, the biggest enemy to Bill is Bill himself.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Windsor Returns from Facebook Suspension

So after getting a 30 day time out on fb for violating their terms of service, Bill has given his few followers a proof of life as he re-emerged with really nothing to tell them.


My 30-day suspension from Facebook is up I'm sure it will happen again. I was suspended for posting a photo of a cyberstalker's face no you were suspended for violating the terms of service for should know this by now. I wonder if it has anything to do with the lawsuit I have against Facebook no but I'm sure if Facebook were to connect the dots that you are suing them and trying to operate a Facebook page they would do more than just put you in the time out box.

I continue to work more than full-time on my lawsuits I can see, based on your career as a serial entrepreneur how this might seem like real "work" to you against my cyberstalkers ummm, no one is stalking you, no one even cares about you. The evidence is literally overwhelming oh well, maybe you can get a better hold on it next time much of it. I've become a poor man's expert on defamation how many poor men have over $1 million on deposit with Wells Fargo?.

If you are interested in following the "trials" heh...funny you used "" because you know you will never have a real trial and tribulations I'm sure just driving down the street is a "tribulation" for you, I won't be able to do much of anything on the movie what movie? until my name and reputation get restored after the vicious defamation. you see folks, I can't finish the movie because of all these people who said I wouldn't make a movie.  I know that may not make any sense to you but so what.....I create the narrative 

Thursday, May 8, 2014

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

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.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Bill's Trial By Facebook gets Stayed

Since he can't seem to get anywhere in court, Bill has decided to try his case on his facebook account as he libels and defames all kinds of people he doesn't know, and and they don't know him either.  Not only is his lawsuit against Facebook not going too well, now his trial by facebook has been suspended as he is locked out of his account. Yep, he did it again, he violated the rules and now he can't post anything for 30 days. This must be some kind of violation of his Constitutional rights.

Where will he go to stalk and harass people if he can't post it on the internet?  Will this bring about a new lawsuit against Facebook?  Will his victims find out about his defamation of them?  Is it time to pretend he is getting that skull surgery he has been threatening?  Is there even anyone left that will follow him?

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Bill Windsor Attacks Facebook, Will Facebook Bite Back?

Bill's vexatious fantasy tour is about to hit a hard stop as he is now biting at the big dogs who may be in the mood to finally bite back.  Yes, thats right, Windsor is taking on Facebook.  He is suing them for "luring" him in to using Facebook to promote his non-existent movie.  Bill claims that because FB took his page down, he lost years of information, his 50,000 followers who had registered with his page...and get this....the promotion of the movie was effectively ended.  Well try as he might, this little attempt at history revision isn't going to pass the smell test.  

Everyone can quickly get a sense of what this lawsuit is all about when Bill says "The defendant thumbed its multi-billion dollar nose at the law and plaintiff". Thats right, this is about money, Bill wants it and Facebook has it. He then goes on to blame FB for allowing his haters to spread their hate of him and then finishes it off with the usual sob story of how FB has cost him his marriage, his kids, his job, and even his home.

But lets not forget what the real truth was. Bill Windsor had 50,000 "likes" at one time (or close to it) on his public page but as we looked in to those profiles, the overwhelming majority of those likes were from fake profiles. Remember this story for instance
So Windsor defrauded Facebook with these likes in the first place and once we exposed his lie he hid all the likes.  This was way before facebook suspended his account.  I'm sure the logical question any judge would ask is how could someone go from 50,000 followers to just 100 by simply losing a facebook page?  The answer of course is there never was 50,000 real followers, only a Windsor illusion.  But don't let facts or even his fraud get in the way of making up a good story and trying to attack Facebook and their mulit-billion dollar company.

Since Bill has made himself a public figure and since he has taken the first shot at Facebook, this gives the Facebook legal team an easy target to make an example out of.  People need to know that there are consequences for artificially inflating the number of followers you have for financial and political purposes. Bill Winsor is loaded and has plenty of money to cover FB's legal fees and damages, just ask Maid of the Mist how hard it is for him to cut a big settlement check when he has too.

As Bill Windsor claims in this lawsuit:
. The DEFENDANT’s conduct as
described above is willful, wanton, wicked, intentional, and malicious resulting
from fraud, insult, and malice, and it is associated with aggravating circumstances,
including willfulness, wantonness, malice, oppression, outrageous conduct, insult,
and fraud, thus warranting the PLAINTIFF’s recovery of punitive damages from
the DEFENDANT. The PLAINTIFF should receive an award of punitive
damages. Exemplary damages serve to provide the claimant with recovery above
and beyond compensatory damages in order to punish the wrongdoer for egregious
conduct and to deter the wrongdoer and others from similar conduct in the future.
Since the PLAINTIFF’s damages can never be erased in this case; there is no
amount of money that could compensate the PLAINTIFF for the loss of the loves
of his life, his wife, children, and grandchildren; there is no amount of money to
compensate a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen for the destruction of his career
and reputation.

I think he is making a great point...just in reverse.  He used, for free, FB's page to go out and lure people in to signing up with his fake movie he would never produce and then solidified it by artificially inflating his "likes" on his FB page to deceive people in to thinking he had a big following.  The usual slap on the wrist just won't do here.  Facebook needs to show everyone what happens when you defraud them and users nationwide like Bill did