National Liberty Alliance Faces the "Now What" Phase

With the Me the People movement suffering another embarrassing turnout in their latest ploy to "take their country back" called Operation American Spring, John Darash continues to struggle to plug all the holes in his sinking ship that is the NLA.  Infighting, moving dates, lack of funding and the inability to get any court to notice their existence has Darash on the brink of irrelevancy.  He still says they are on for June 2nd in a Fed court in NY, but he is becoming increasingly worried that they may never get their foot in the door.  Darash penned this letter as he feels the pressure building:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/14-05-20%20letter%20to%20Federal%20Judge_0.pdf

They were able to at least get a file number for this case:

Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury v. Lippman et al

Date Filed: May 09, 2014
Nature of suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Assigned to: Judge Glenn T. Suddaby
Case in other court: NYS Supreme Court, Greene County, 14-00384
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury demand: None
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel

Docket Proceedings
Req # Filed # Docket Text
1 May 09, 2014 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from New York State Supreme Court, Greene County, case number 14-0384 (Filed over the counter, in Albany, NY with no fee paid and no IFP application filed) filed by Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tab) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
2 May 09, 2014 2 NOTICE of FILE ON DEMAND by Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury (tab) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
3 May 16, 2014 3 PRO SE HANDBOOK and NOTICE mailed on 5/16/14 (tab) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

Wait what?  They filed it but didn't pay the fee?  So they pulled a Windsor?  Just in case this goes the wrong way and the court might want to use their jurisdiction over them they think they can claim "oh wait we never paid the fee, never-mind".  This shows exactly what this is all about.....same as Bill, they are just playing games.

Then we have Darash and the NLA embracing, while rejecting, their domestic terrorist status:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/14-05-20%20Information_0.pdf

Interesting that they correctly identify their main problems with the letter topic headlines of "Conspiracy Theorist, Domestic Terrorist, and Mental Disorders".  That kinda sums up the NLA (new lawless america). They go on to say:  
"If these false liens, frivolous lawsuits, bogus letters of credit, and other legal documents lack
sound factual basis why aren't they just defeated in a court of law, the reason they cannot is
because of the fiction of equity courts, that corporatists have been using to fleece the People for
over a hundred years, and now that the People discovered how to use the equity courts of fiction
to get justice from the judges and lawyers that have been making a fortune at this fraud, now cry
foul when their own tactics are used against them."

Please stop calling us Sovereign Citizens or domestic terrorists even though we fully support what they are trying to do and how they are doing it, not to mention that we are doing it ourselves.  We prefer to be called patriots or The People thank you very much.  Any other label is considered harassment (defamation for Bill). Me the People desire a free country where everyone is free to say and do whatever they want....as long as they approve.

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.

BILL WINDSOR IS BACK AFTER A 30-DAY FACEBOOK SUSPENSION. back where?

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 facebook....you 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 then...so 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, checkwww.LawlessAmerica.com. 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 

With friends like these…

By NBTDT

I was looking at the list of people that provided affidavits and other documents in support of Bill Windsor for the Missouri case; there are a lot of unfamiliar names.    This raised several questions.     Who are these people?  How are they connected to Bill?     How long have they known Bill?     How well do they know Bill?    Do they know Bill aside from sitting in front of his camera for an hour?     What do they know about Bill other than what he posts on the internet?      When these people approached Bill to be in the movie, did they expect to become part of a revolution?   Or, did they offer their testimony only in hopes of resolving their own specific issue?     If they weren't active within Lawless America, then why were they motivated to help Bill in this way?    What did they say about Bill?    

I found that most of them gave their “testimony” to Bill.     In the moments when I've had nothing better to do over the last couple weeks, I watched the videos of the people on the list and gave Google search engines a good work out in an attempt to answer some of the questions.      The people whose videos are posted fit into one or more of 5 categories: complaints about child protective agencies, complaints from people who have been, or are advocating for someone convicted of a crime, complaints regarding losses in civil court, complaints of elder abuse, and complaints of government corruption from people who dislike and fight bureaucracy.    

The categories break down according to primary complaint as follows:

Child Protective Agencies

Total number = 15:  4 people complained that children were removed from the parents due to accusations of sexual abuse.   The other 11 people complained that children were removed due to accusations of physical abuse or neglect.      

Criminal Convictions

Total number = 18: Complaints of judicial and/or law enforcement corruption in conviction of 6 murders, 3 sexual offences involving children, 2 for physical abuse of children,  3 for kidnapping, 1 terrorist threat, 2 for fraud and 1 who did not disclose his crime (he gave his testimony under an alias).   All are claiming innocence.   

Civil Court “corruption”

Total number = 35:  Of these, 8 were for property claims, 27 were complaints of family court corruption in a divorce and/or child custody case.   Of the child custody disputes, 12 involved unsupported accusations of sexual abuse by one parent against the other, 6 complaints were either for not receiving enough child support or wrongfully ordered to pay support and there were 7 unsupported accusations of domestic violence.   All of the custody cases involve at least one accusation against the custodial parent, a few have two.    Except for Yevgenia Shockome.   Yevgenia deserves honorable mention as she hit the trifecta – she is accusing her ex-husband of sexual abuse, domestic violence and she is refusing to pay court ordered child support.    She is fighting the court order to pay support in two states.   She went to jail for contempt of court.  

Elder Abuse

Total number = 6:   All complaints were similar, regarding poor physical care and liquidation of estates.  

Government Corruption

Total number = 19: Complaints regarding judicial corruption, various government agency corruption and civil rights violations.   

There were 7 people on the affidavit list not counted in the category break down: 3 were just friends of someone else Bill filmed, 4 do not appear to have given their testimony to Bill and no connection to Bill or Lawless America was found in searches.      

There are 100 names on the list.    Bill has about 1200 testimonial videos posted and many followers that were not filmed.    Affidavits were publicly solicited from all of the Lawless America followers.   Surely the active and familiar members of the group responded to Bill’s call for help.   Sharon Anderson responded.   But she’s not included on the list.   So why stop at 100?   Why not submit 101 affidavits?   Does Bill just like even numbers or did he cherry pick his supporters?    How many other followers responded to Bill’s call for help but were not chosen?    Are the 4 people not filmed the only real world friends Bill has?    

Of the 100 people listed, I recognize 21 names as being active after the D.C. event last year; 7 have joined up with National Liberty Alliance, 10 espouse SovCit rhetoric and 3 are conspiracy theorists.    My count of active members may be slightly off, but roughly 79% of the people listed do not appear to be participants in the Lawless America revolution.   This causes me to wonder if the majority of these people were motivated to assist Bill only for the promise of resolving their own issues and securing a place in the movie.    

As for what these people have said in support of Bill, maybe the affidavits will be obtained through FOIA or shared once the case is disposed so that we can judge the credibility and validity of the statements for ourselves.   In the meantime, if the affidavits filed in Texas are an indicator, I suspect the Missouri court is holding on to 100 worthless pieces of paper. 

http://sharon-minnesotalawlessamerica.blogspot.com/2013/03/mnsharonandersonaffidavitmobillwindsorl.html 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Darash Rolls Out Educational Requirements

On the National Liberty Alliance (NLA or New Lawless America) weekly call, John Darash continued to chide this followers as it seems they are making no progress.  Darash decided to institute a curriculum which will now be a requirment to be one of the leaders in his group.  This is when Darash slowly moves himself out to pasture, the very same pasture that David Schied has been grazing in for years.  Both David and John are true believers and as such they have immersed themselves in to the study of the cause they believe in.  But what they fail to see is that they are the exception to this group of vigilantes that call themselves Me the People.  Most of these people are like Bill, they joined as a way to eventually right their perceived legal wrongs, they have no time for lectures and courses....this is vigilante justice, take it by hook, crook or default.  For them its personal, for John and David its corporate.

Darash explained that this new requirement will separate the serious folks from the pretenders, but I'm afraid he is not going to be happy with that result.  He feels the need to do something as he hears anecdotal stories of some of his followers convening a citizen grand jury at the local Denny's and convicting people.  Come on people, you have to rent out a conference room and send out at least 3 chain linked email notices two weeks in advance.  Jefferson must be rolling in his grave....and not the one in Colombia Missouri....Bill.

So on to the update, well the latest judge sent them back a ruling saying we don't play that game.....they indicted him and took those papers to the Sheriff.  The Sheriff said can you please take care of your own trash, I'm not accepting that.  Then its on the to clerk who says go talk to the DA who tells them he won't accept that but they can appeal.  Frustrated, Darash pulled the plug and decided to start all over now in the Federal courts.  So now he is hoping for a hearing on the 29th in a fed court in Albany.

The NLA is suffering from a lack of a dictator.  Darash had to spend a considerable amount of time trying to urge his fellow state coordinators to weed out the malcontents themselves as he didn't want to be the one getting involved in doing other States' yard work for them.  And so continues the cycle of all these vigilante justice groups, they invariably end up eating their own as they fall from within with a lack of structure while trying to destroy our current legal system.  The real damage, though, is to the people like Mary B who is clearly lost and needs guidance....and in fact is reaching out for that guidance, these groups poison her head even more so than it already is and then discard her like leftover trash when she becomes a nuisance to them.