After going crazy with the heat in both Arizona and Nevada, Bill now heads to the funny farm to check out the operation. The man with no home had been previously touring prison facilities, but now he wants to check out his other possible final destination.
The reason for this visit is he plans to spook the latest Lawless follower to be institutionalized (even odds on either Mary Deneen or the Rhode Island woman as next up) in Connie Fielding. Bill even points out that the "likes" on his facebook page are dwindling but he blames that on the new settings he said he put in place. The truth is the core of his followers are ending up in jail or committed. It is fun watching them give Bill advice on his health when Bill is either complaining about his ear or the heat.
Domain Names: Windsor has decided to adopt the Crystal Cox tried and failed method of taking out domain names in the name of the person or group you are stalking. He has recently put one up on Boushie, Claudine, and all of the AMPPs.
Crazy with the Heat: Bill gave daily and sometimes hourly updates of the current temperature on the Las Vegas Strip as he took his photo's all from a half mile radius of the MGM Grand
Drive-by Shotings: The Jeep now has a ceiling cam on it so that now Bill won't even have to get out of the car to do his filming.
Utah: Bill took his crime scene tape to Utah as he filmed a woman he knew nothing about for 3 hours. He was fascinated by her story calling it maybe the most compelling story he has filmed yet. The main reason he believes her is because she apparently has some gruesome images Bill can't wait to upload for shock value.
Ear owie: He blamed the gale force wind from the hotel air conditioners (someone should let him know that he can control those) for having an ear ache. He claimed to visit several clinics in the area but disagreed with their diagnosis and told them to cease and desist. He used that excuse as a way to stay a few extra days in Sin City as he lived it up and worked on his Missouri lawsuit filings.
More .com problems for the drama king...
ReplyDeleteLawless America shared a link.
26 minutes ago.
SAVE LAWLESSAMERICA.COM -- OUR SITE BARELY WORKS NOW THAT WE ARE AT ENOM, SO WE ARE ADVERTISING FOR A JOOMLA CONSULTANT.
LOL I was thinking the same thing. How many people has he burned through for help, just to turn around and call them incompetent and insult their work?
DeleteHe used to have all kinds of great people helping him and he abused & belittled all of his volunteers after he was done using them.
DeleteI have offered many times as of late as web master of
Deletewww.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org a Joomla site.
But he ignored me LOL
Insane asylums and prisons. Sounds just like freeky fat boy Billy who suffers erectile dysfunction that not even viagra will help. So this is his only way.
Perverted tiny little prick. LOL
It sux to be you Bill.
Unsure if this is important or not from a court issue standpoint but Bill posted the "Joomla wanted" on guru and his location is still Georgia. I also think people should be warned about working for the man, he'll never pay them for any work they do. Look on the guru applicants and send them a message.
ReplyDeletehttp://oi43.tinypic.com/k12hdh.jpg
Description
Deletewww.LawlessAmerica.com worked fine at GoDaddy, but they terminated us due to "too many folders." We moved to enom, and the site barely functions. Enom says Joomla is poor. Can our site be fixed? Is there a better hosting service? or should we dump Joomla? We are a non-profit assocation that is producing a documentary film, and this is a critical problem for us. The Joomla Consultant will receive credit at the end of the film. :-)
THERE IS NO FILM YOU SCUMBAG and GoDaddy probably removed you because of your criminal stalking tactics. Against their TOS.
8 proposal's on guru have been notified so far.
Is that ad on eLance?
DeleteOn guru. Bill's post link is here:
Deletehttps://www.guru.com/login.aspx/?ReturnURL=/emp/ProjectOverview.aspx?projectid=953386
This guy just wants it all for free. He continues to use, use, use people. What a shame. All your effort, for "credit" at the end of a fake movie. That should send experienced freelancers running for the hills, but newbies should be warned.
DeleteAre we going to hear the great information of Bill's downfall soon?
ReplyDeleteCan't wait....
Because choosing to stalk people for a fake movie over a golden retirement with family in the lap of luxury isn't a downfall enough for you? Just wait, he has no one left to keep him grounded in reality. Just like with those Hollywood drug addicts, it's just a matter of how low will he fall before he dies or is incarcerated. Tragedy what wealth and hubris do to the human condition.
DeleteSomeone on an earlier post a few days ago said they had some great news they will share as soon as they can. I think that may be what Anon 3:33 was referring to.
DeleteOh I see.
DeleteAh well, even genuine movies are sometimes never released, but the difference is that drug users have to hit bottom at some point. The thing is that earaches are generally uncommon in adults. It's possibly swimmers ear with his love for hottubs, or the remnants of an upper respiratory infection. If bad, it can be treated with anti-biotics which would actually be illadvised given his already depleted immune system. As long as he can still hear, has no ringing and nothing dripping from the ear, most likely he is fine. Now if he's visiting several doctors over this, then the likelihood is he is doctor shopping for the pain killers. Interesting is it not that he does seem to disappear when he gets to a new state. How man doctors, prescriptions, bank accounts and/or post office boxes does he have?
DeleteI thought it might be a red herring.
DeleteAh dang it...I was hoping it was a earwig...a FEMALE earwig!
DeleteCould be a red herring too.
DeletePut up or shut up.
DeletePut up or shut up: idiom that originates from gambling. Therefore, I see your impatience and I raise you an eyebrow. Pretty sure the feds won't give their hands away so easily either.
Deleteusing someones name with the intent to harm or defraud is a crime
ReplyDeleteI see from the Missouri case filing database that several things have happened in the past few weeks in Windsor v. Overstreet, Missouri state-court case no. 13LF-CV00461.
ReplyDeleteOn May 29, through her lawyer, Ms. Overstreet filed an Answer (that is, a response to Windsor's Complaint initiating the litigation), and on June 3 she filed a Motion to Dismiss the case and a Motion to Strike something that Windsor submitted (it's not clear from the database entry what that something is).
Then, earlier today, Windsor requested that the court issue subpoenas; according to Ms. Overstreet in a previous thread, those were 12 subpoenas for non-party witnesses, and it appears that Windsor intends to use them to ferret out the identities of some of the 1,000 John Does he's trying to sue. Today Windsor also sent discovery requests—interrogatories and requests for the production of documents—to Defendant Mark Supanich, presumably to his home in Montana.
Ms. Overstreet's counsel, Kansas City attorney Matthew J. O'Connor, shows every sign of being a tough and accomplished lawyer who can litigate rings around Bill Windsor. I imagine the Answer and motions he drafted would be a lot of fun to read.
For all of these reasons, I'm extremely curious to see what the parties' recent filings look like. Is there any chance that the usual sources we rely on on this blog (paging "Bill Windsor Files"…) could post PDF versions of those documents? As far as I can tell, the Missouri court database only provides titles and filing dates, not scanned copies.
Pretty please?
@ Attorney: Thank you for the update. Very much appreciated.
DeleteSorry to ask for duplicate info if Allie posted this earlier, I didn't find it: who are the 12 non-party witnesses that were subpoenaed?
DeleteI Sure hope I get one!!! I'm almost out of toliet paper....
Delete@ Allie: glad to see you are keeping a sense of humor. I agree with Attorney, I think you will be well represented no matter who Bill drags or doesn't drag into the court room. Too bad I don't live closer, I'd come watch the fun.
Delete@ Boushie: Very funny, you actually made me giggle.
Thanks, Ms. Overstreet.
DeleteC.S. aka Cheryl Sosby aka Pepper Miller. Don't ever come to this blog again for sympathy. You are a two timing back stabbing bitch.
ReplyDeletehttp://oi43.tinypic.com/2z87z0o.jpg
You know that rumor about CS has been circulating around guess the rumor was right. Smooth move ex-lax.
DeleteShe's been doing it for a few months now. I've showed Ginger a few screenshots but Cheryl thinks none of us have seen what she's doing so she keeps coming back here pretending to be friends with everyone. Very tired of her game.
DeleteIs this the cry baby that posted here late one night that she sat and thought outside the court room for a WHOLE HOUR before terminating her parental rights?
DeleteYes, same person NBTDT.
DeleteYep. Mr. Bill, herein lies the problem:
ReplyDelete"I am always surprised when someone walks in; I know nothing about their story and have no expectations"
Bill made that statement in reference to his filming Sandy Boyett. Sandy claims " HER HUSBAND, RAY, WAS TORTURED AND MURDERED BY DEPUTIES AT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL PURGATORY FACILITY IN HURRICANE UTAH." Sandy describes horrible acts that Ray suffered while in jail. Bill claims to have seen photos, depicting the torture, that are so awful he will not show them on camera.
Well, not exactly. Ray had a bunch of medical issues, he was taking several medications. The ME determined cause of death to be occlusive coronary artery disease, with cirrhosis of the liver serving as a contributing factor. The family sued the County and a bunch of people. The case ended up in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lower courts' decisions were affirmed. The FBI investigated Ray's death. One of the plaintiff's experts testified that he'd come to the same conclusion as the ME re: cause of death.
The family claims the County is at fault for Ray's death for:
a. Failure to supply a qualified medical provider
b. Failure to provide the medicine and care prescribed by Boyett’s treating physicians prior
to incarceration
c. Failure to respond to symptoms and complaints regarding internal bleeding
d. Failure to respond to falls and seizures on September 3
e. Failure to treat Boyett’s head laceration
f. Improper injection of antipsychotic medication
g. Failure to prevent Boyett’s death
As regards the claims above, the court of appeals found:
"In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to point to material disputed facts sufficient to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs have not shown prison officials were deliberately indifferent to Boyett’s serious medical needs."
Sandy claims Ray was assaulted and tortured by deputies because of a tear found in Ray's rectum. This injury was addressed in the complaint as "excessive force". Nobody knows how or when Ray was injured. The court found "In contradistinction to Plaintiffs’ unsupported theory, the record evidence suggests Boyett was never physically abused." In fact, the courts found there is evidence to prove that the deputies were never alone with Boyett and didn't have an opportunity to assault him.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/06-4315/06-4315-2011-03-14.html
I love how you find this information. I hope that his comment "I am always surprised when someone walks in; I know nothing about their story and have no expectations" bites him in the ass. I hope this will prove that he isn't a producer, film maker, or documentarian. He doesn't know SHIT about what he's doing, who he's taping, or the truth or lies behind it. He just takes their word. Real documentary film makers all research. They know the stories inside and out. They want to be taken seriously. It's about educating the public.
DeleteIF he ever manages to eek out some low budget movie, I hope he gets sued left and right by the "other sides" to all these stories for gross incompetence, negligence, misrepresentation of facts, and all the other legal terms for not putting the truth on film for a supposed "Corruption Documentary."
How does alleged wrongful death from alleged medical neglect become alleged torture? Well how does the normal phenomenon of a decaying corpse become an alleged vampire? Because we little understand the human body when it is alive, and less so when it is dead. If I may make a casual guess with little of the evidence before me, then this is what happened here. What is the nature of that anal tear? It is possible for tears to happen due to poor bathroom hygiene of straining. I would expect such things to be a normal occurrence in a prison due to the environment and the American male's squeamishness and/or performance anxieties. As for the gruesome pictures that Bill described of a swollen scrotum, an inquiring mind might ask what is the normal appearance of a healthy scrotum post mortem. There is a natural phenomenon know as a postmortem priapism. Conditions of the death such as position of the body, medications, seizures, internal bleeding, and such, can all affect the flow of blood (and other fluids) to every part of the body which would affect the appearance postmortem, to include the genitals. So I would ask if this grieving family consulted an expert before pressing charges or if they jumped to conclusions.
ReplyDeleteSo true LNM. Based on the court documents, this man was a medical mess prior to his arrest. He was an alcoholic, had hep c, suffered from depression and anxiety, had a hernia operation, and various other problems. He was not in good health at all. So his body deterioration probably would be rapid I would think. (and who knows, if she presented pictures to dumbass Bill, it could have been the autopsy photos, which would be gruesome)But, to me, it seems that he was dying prior to the arrest. His body was slowly shutting down, and they just want someone to blame it on.
DeleteThere are some absolutely absurd comments under that post on Bill's page. Among them are names, addresses and phone numbers for all of the relatives of the person they are trying to find. I won't post those.
Delete"Lawless America Thanks SO MUCH everyone. Sandra Boyett commented above to confirm the spelling of the name for me. It is Carmen Isheim. Sandy has had a number of addresses and phones, but all have turned out to be bad. But Michelle Welker, let's see if your sleuth work is different from what Sandy had found."
"Lawless America Tam is absolutely right. If we get her social security number, tracking her should be simple. But a personnel file should lead the way even if they redact the social security number. You can also do a document request if you can get another civil suit filed some way."
"Lawless America Wayne, did you look at many of the photos? I saw them all after you left, and I've never seen any such thing. And I hope I never again see anything like that. Men, imagine if someone inserted a metal tube in your backside and blew air into your scrotum to blow it up like a balloon. That was just one of the horrific things that was done to a man who was in jail due to a clerical error...and because he had seen law enforcement officials involved with drugs and money...they wanted to silence him."
And finally, the bitter Bill we know rears his ugly head
"Lawless America Sandy, as we discussed, we both share the "no white flags, never surrender" philosophy. If someone gave me a white flag and forced me to wave it, I would find a way to color it first. You may be close to finally getting the last piece of the puzzle that SHOULD get the three murderers arrested, indicted, convicted, sent to prison forever with photos of what they did to your sweet husband sewn to the backs of their prison shirts with "Former Deputy Sheriff" tattooed on their foreheads and all private parts."
Those comments might seem absurd, but we should take care not to blow them off too quickly. Maybe we've got it all wrong - here is the answer, it was right in front of us the whole time. We only needed Dave to point us in the right direction. Ray was a targeted individual.......
DeleteDave Rades Anybody and everybody reading this can be " targeted " by the authorities for any reason including political ... they are literally chasing me around with cop cars fire trucks ambulances helicopters and " street theatre ".... google targeted individuals and gang stalking and see how prevalent this practice is around the world . Countless people have been killed and forced suicide .... even Bill Windsor is targeted whether he knows it or not . google now .
Dave Rades http://intellihub.com/2013/06/06/coordinated-harassment-and-neutralization-of-social-undesirables/
LMAO NBTDT! Oh my bad! Dave is right.
DeleteNo doubt. Windsor is going to try and get all of the ISPs to identify people. I doubt if he will succeed because I don't think he will be able to figure out the correct procedure, but I guess stranger things have happened.
ReplyDeleteIf someone gave me a white flag and forced me to wave it, I would find a way to color it first.
DeleteStick it in your pants; when it you color it yellow and brown, we win!
the funny part is when this get dismissed your court is going to be the hater with us
Deleteif he got my name to your lawsuit I would ask for another 50,000 bond.... then thing will be funny because I can prove, that I was trying to tell him he had people working for him, that has a history of being arrested For forgery and hate crimes..... that when he went nuts, calling me part of a hate group posting my e-mail and asking for people to send me threat.....
DeleteYep, he did it before, and he will most likely do it again. Thrash knew it, and it's why he made his orders the way he did. It's just a shame the higher court Judge didn't pay attention or research before allowing his circus to roll into their town.
DeletePMZH, the $50K bond is required only if Billy wants to sue government officials.
DeleteWhat hate crimes is bill followers doing
DeleteOnce again Susan, aka anon 4:41 you are wrong. But then again if you were right about something you wouldn't be Susan would ya?
DeleteBill had to obtain a special order from a Federal Judge to grant him permission to file a civil case in MO because of the Judge Thrash order. Now shhhhhhh, the adults are talking, go play with your toys in the little kids corner and try not to make so much noise
Bill tech man was arrested in Ct for posting hate online at African America.
Deletehttp://www.southernct.edu/student-life/health/womenscenter/topics/lgbt_issues/hate_crimes.html
Susan H is also friends with Janice, and PMA
Deletethese people are told not to look or google things... sad blind followers go read the lawsuit, that part that is very creepy, is that MS is Allies BF after she said she love him
sorry for the typo, in the last post ..... but anyone else find it over the top creepy, how he said she love him and how MS is her BF, in the Lawsuit?
DeleteSusan we've shared those documents and the specific bond approval on this blog weeks ago. Go find it yourself if you're so smart. smh
DeleteAnonymous 1:25 you obviously didn't read the court files and letters. The judge made Bill provide $50K in Allie's case.
DeleteAnd you obviously are a presumptive A$$HOLE. Did I claim Windsor didn't get a bond? No, I was writing specifically to PMZH's post, ie, if Windsor got his/her name to the MO. lawsuit he/she would ask for another 50,000 bond. What I wrote was accurate, so STFU!
I posted Judge Thrash's vexi order months ago so Susie Q would STFU and quit arguing with somebody about something she was wrong about.
DeleteSo, let's recap: Susie thinks she can read and understand a statute, any State statute. But, she can read but doesn't understand a Judge's decision or orders and posts on a blog.
OK then. Everybody got it?
OMG are you kidding Susan? Colorable Claim? Had that Federal Judge taken two seconds to see why Windsor was barred from filing any suit anywhere, he would have seen it's because he files frivolous, malicious, and meaningless, meritless crap. Repeatedly. He was labeled a "serial filer". It would tend to raise a red flag that perhaps he might be starting another frivolous, vexatious civil suit. Why do you think the numerous police stations that he filed his criminal complaints with didn't file on his behalf? Even though he says everyone is a criminal. Because it's stupid, has zero merit, and is baseless, trivial crap with the sole purpose of bogging down the courts and costing the defendants time and money. You are seriously a disease just like Windsor. oh sure, you slammed Allie's PO case, and you are going to support this one. F.O.
DeleteA party's right of access to the court is not absolute or unconditional.
Delete[Green v. Warden (7th Cir. 1983) 669 F. 2d. 364, 329.]
One definition for the word colorable: deceptive. As in: "That which appears plausible or reflective of reality, but is deceptive, intended to conceal, does not correspond with reality, or is not authentic or valid." http://law.yourdictionary.com/colorable
DeleteSo yes you are correct, Susan. Bill's claim against Allie is deceptive and perhaps the whole reason the court approved the suit was so they could reel him in. Interesting choice or words considering Bill is talking about coloring white flags. Is he paying you for your "legal expertise"?
In U.S. law, the term "color of" denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, so I'm not sure defining it as "deceptive" is legit. Green v. Warden is a case about a vexatious inmate; nevertheless, it is well established in law that no one is entitled to abuse the judicial process, and it is this fact with which Susan seems to have trouble.
DeleteYep, and there is the whole problem with legalese being a created jargon, rather than plain English: when the jargon comes to mean the reverse of what the English language would seem to say. Anything can be spun and considering that BW and co are quite shady (another color term), I think it is an ironic term for them to ever use. Then we get people like Susan who learns not the law, but just enough jargon so she can get off on beating people with her pseudo expertise. And by the way, since this is the way of sovereigns the color in question is red. Red crayon, to be exact.
DeleteNo, I was writing specifically to PMZH's post,.... What I wrote was accurate, so STFU!
DeleteLMFAO temper temper temper Susan. You weren't responding to PieMZ, you responded to me, the Anon 4:17 therefore I replied back. You cannot even figure out how to look it up yourself which shows how unintelligent you are. Do you ever hate to be wrong. How many people have walked away from you in the real world? She's this desperate for attention? Wowza
Nope, Anon 4:17 is not Susan. I will take blame/responsibility for that post, and I don't think I was mistaken about PMZH wanting to make Windsor get another $50K bond. Unless PMHZ is a government official, then the court would have no basis to impose another bond. Make sense?
DeleteWell last I heard, BW thinks we are all working for the government or else protected by the government....perhaps that is why he had to pay? Nahhhh! It was this:
Delete"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff, William M. Windsor, and any parties acting in concert with him or at his behest, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from filing ANY complaint or initiating ANY proceeding, including ANY new lawsuit or administrative proceeding, in ANY court (state or federal) or agency in the United States without first obtaining leave of a federal district court in the district in which the new complaint or proceeding is to be filed."
LNM,
DeleteSee, that last bit bugs me. We all know Billy had to go to get a leave with a federal district court before filing a civil suit, but what about a leave for filing a criminal complaint? IMHO, that's EXACTLY what Thrash wanted him to do, and I don't see how you can get around that! There are five ANYs in that paragraph, and thus I can't believe a reasonable person would argue Thrash was trying to cast a very limited net over Windsor; on the contrary, it is the widest possible net! A governmental agency is defined as a department or body providing a specific service for a government or similar organization, and law enforcement is no exception. IMHO, Windsor violated Thrash's order in TX, AZ, MI, etc--everywhere he didn't get a district court's permission to file changes.
I'm not a legal expert, but I remember the line where they said they were doing this to protect the tax payer. I would hope that this protection includes the right not to be harassed rather than just the right not to have our tax dollars wasted as well. At some point the consumer watchdogs need to speak up to warn the public.
DeleteLols. It ups the ante. Got it, thanks Allie.
DeleteAt the distinct risk of encouraging a troll, Anonymous @4:41's use of the term "colorable" is more consistent with the lawyerly meaning of that word than is the dictionary definition lawlessnomore posted @6:39. To say a claim is colorable is to say that, on the face of it, it's not self-evidently meritless or ridiculous.
DeleteHowever, Anon @4:41 continues:
The only thing the Federal Judge in MO had to decide was whether Windsor's current complaint included a colorable claim. It does, therefore the Judge had a duty to approve it.
As appears to be typical for him or her, Anon @4:41 provides no citation to authority supporting this confident and entirely unconditional declaration of law. So I've spent the last half-hour or so (boy, do I wish I could bill this to Anon) researching the point.
The first thing to note, of course, is Judge Thrash's initial order declaring Windsor a vexatious litigant:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff, William M. Windsor, and any parties acting in concert with him or at his behest, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from filing any complaint or initiating any proceeding, including any new lawsuit or administrative proceeding, in any court (state or federal) or agency in the United States without first obtaining leave of a federal district court in the district in which the new complaint or proceeding is to be filed. In seeking such leave, the Plaintiff must present any such court with a copy of this Order. If the lawsuit or administrative proceeding names federal judges or court employees, the Plaintiff must also tender a $50,000.00 cash bond or a $50,000.00 corporate surety bond sufficient to satisfy an award of Rule 11 sanctions since such actions are presumably frivolous. Failure to obey this Order, including by attempting to avoid or circumvent the intent of this Order, will be grounds for sanctions including contempt.
Significantly, there is nothing in the above text stating that a federal court reviewing a Windsor request for leave to file a lawsuit is obligated to grant that request if the lawsuit states colorable claims.
Indeed, Judge Thrash declares that Windsor's lawsuits, at least if they implicate judicial personnel, "are presumably frivolous." One might note that that strongly suggests that Thrash does not intend to provide Windsor's claims with a benefit-of-the-doubt treatment, under which they're permitted as long as they're merely colorable.
Next, we can review the order from the Missouri federal court that allowed Windsor to file his suit against Ms. Overstreet and her fellow defendants. Once again, Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., says not a single word about (1) the colorability of Windsor's claims or (2) any notion that he is required to permit Windsor to file claims as long as those claims are colorable.
That dispenses with the directly relevant analysis provided by the courts involved in this matter. But how about the more general point, as analyzed by other federal courts?
[Continued…]
[Part 2:]
DeleteOn the popular professional Westlaw litigation database, I searched for case law from a federal court anywhere in the U.S. stating or applying anything resembling the requirement Anon @4:41 confidently declares. As far as I can tell, there is no such case law. Westlaw records no federal court ever holding that, when a vexatious litigant submits a complaint bearing colorable claims, a federal court is required to allow those claims to proceed.
Interestingly, however, I did find a California statute, and a small number of California state and federal cases interpreting that statute, that echo Anon's declaration rather closely:
By its very terms, the [California vexatious litigant] statute is only implicated once the state court has concluded that there is “no reasonable probability that [the plaintiff] will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 391.3. Further, even when a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant, the statute does not preclude a plaintiff from filing subsequent lawsuits, so long as those lawsuits have merit. See Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7; see Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal.App.4th 43, 60, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 694 (1997) (“When a vexatious litigant knocks on the courthouse door with a colorable claim, he may enter.”)
- Wolfe v. George, 385 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
But that's not federal law; it's California state law. Neither Judge Thrash, Judge Gaitan, nor the current civil lawsuit is in California or is governed by that state's law. California has nothing to do with this case. (One wonders, however, whether California has something to do with Anon @4:41, given that (s)he is presenting a matter of California law as if it were a matter of general law that is binding on a Missouri federal court.)
So. Once again, this Anon appears to be engaged in the (at least) seriously unprofessional practice of making declarations regarding law with vastly more confidence than those declarations deserve, in utter disregard for the black-letter law (or, here, the lack thereof) that his/her declarations purport to describe. In court, such behavior would at the very least seriously irritate a judge, if it were not a sanctionable ethical violation or, indeed, Rule 11 misconduct. On a blog, I suppose it's just arrogant and trollish puffery. In either context, it's ugly and regrettable.
Thank you Attorney for taking the time to clear that up. We so appreciate your knowledge.
DeleteTrolls need not comment!
I'm going to frame part 1 & 2. Thank you Attorney. You are a class act!
DeleteThank you Attorney.
DeleteAny chance you care to own your own SHIT Susan after the Attorney beat you into the ground again?
DeleteDidn't think so. But it's delightful to see just how insanely jealous and obsessed you are. Makes me smile to know several of us hit those nerves. Thanks for the laughs.
Susan, you stink of paralegal. Better go see if you can loofah that off....
DeleteHey Susan, please own your shit:
Delete1) What is your real name?
2) When and where did you meet Bill?
3) Why were you working with him?
4) What did he do to piss you off?
5) Why do you run a clearinghouse on everyone who hates him, except for of course your own self?
6) Who else reads your blog besides yourself?
7) Why do you have a love/hate relationship with him?
8) Why do think you are smarter than everyone?
9) Let me guess, are you one of those people who teaches "law" in her own home?
10) Why do you post here anonymously, specifically when you have been asked to leave because of your rudeness to everyone?
11) Why do you judge people harshly for disliking Bill when you don't like him either?
12) Were you ever romantic with him or did you want to be?
13) Is he paying you or do you offer your services to him for free?
14) Why did you lie about warning us that he sues people?
15) Where did you obtain your law degree, and if you don't have one, then where did you "study" and who was your "teacher"?
16) Did Bill come crying to you and ask you to come here?
17) Why do you start out pretending to be friends with people and then make fun of them?
18) Why if you were with BW before LA, were you inactive with LA?
19) Why do you equate banning trolls with censorship?
20) Why are you afraid to tell us the truth about yourself?
Anon @2:23 AM:
DeleteYou are noticeably evading the matter at issue, which is your affirmative declaration that Judge Gaitan "had a duty to approve" Windsor's request to file his lawsuit in Missouri on the sole grounds that "Windsor's current complaint included a colorable claim" (emphasis added). That is an affirmative claim. It is therefore incumbent upon you to provide a foundation for it, not on a skeptic to disprove it. The bulk of my comment was devoted to demonstrating the gaping lack of support for your declaration.
Thrash’s order is not binding on another Federal judge, hence the absence of any such edicts.
Federal judges—especially district-court judges—make pronouncements all the time that are "not binding on another Federal judge," but are only intended to act as persuasive precedent. Indeed, in this very order Thrash declares that certain filings of Windsor's are "presumably frivolous"—a pronouncement he made despite the fact that it was "not binding on another Federal [sic] judge." Which means that you are incorrect on this sub-point as well.
But that aside, you are once again evading the point of this entire exchange. You made an unconditional declaration of law. In one particular document in which one might expect to find support for your declaration, there is in fact no such support. Judge Gaitan's order granting Windsor's request is a second such document. Your own 2:23 AM comment is a third: you have once again cited nothing whatsoever that supports your legal assertions.
As this exchange continues, it becomes more and more noteworthy that, in places where one might expect to find a basis for your assertions, there is no basis to be found.
You are not going to find any case law stating that a court is required to allow someone to file a lawsuit.
But I did find precisely such case law: Wolfe v. George, 385 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal.App.4th 43, 60, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 694 (1997), to the effect that "[w]hen a vexatious litigant knocks on the courthouse door with a colorable claim, he may enter."). You are refuted yet again.
If the declaration you made about vexatious litigants and colorable claims were a correct statement of federal law, one would expect it to be amply supported by case law analyzing such requirements—in precisely the way that that notion is, as I demonstrated, directly supported in California case law. But as I noted (and you have tacitly if not overtly conceded), there is no federal case law saying anything of the kind. Thus you are simply fabricating principles of federal law that do not exist. That is deeply unprofessional and frequently sanctionable conduct.
If you want to disprove my statement….
No. You are making an affirmative claim. The burden of persuasion lies with you. It would appear that you are conceding, right here, that you cannot meet that burden.
[Continued...]
[Part 2:]
DeleteDo you think that we single out some citizens and tell them they are no longer entitled to the protection of our laws?
It is a blatant matter of fact that numerous states, as well as the federal government, bar a certain identified group of persons from filing lawsuits in those jurisdictions' respective courts without direct judicial supervision of the filing. The Wolfgram and Wolfe cases analyzing California's statute provide a broad analysis of the constitutional limitations on such policies. Nowhere in those decisions—or in any other that I can find or that you have offered—is it declared that Americans' right to access to the courts mandates the precise standard of review of a colorable claim, rather than other possible standards—for example, a claim on which the plaintiff is likely to prevail, or a claim for which the plaintiff has posted a bond for potential Rule 11 sanctions.
One can easily imagine all kinds of different standards of review that a legislature or court system could apply to vexatious litigants' requests to file litigation. Out of all of these possibilities, you declared that "colorable claim" is a mandatory baseline. All indications at this point are that you simply made that idea up—or, quite possibly, that you thoughtlessly imported it from California law, in which it is an applicable standard, into federal law, in which it isn't.
As an unqualified, blanket statement, of course courts cannot simply block Bill Windsor off from ever utilizing judicial process again. But your pretentiousness notwithstanding, a the specific "colorable claim" standard of review you have asserted does not in fact directly logically follow from that baseline principle.
I would expect a 1L to know that a judge cannot obstruct a litigant’s access to the courts.
Then that 1L would clearly flunk. Judges self-evidently can, under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, "obstruct a litigant's access to the courts" by declaring that litigant a vexatious litigant. The district court and Ninth Circuit in Wolfe, among numerous other courts, have directly stated that. You are refuted (thanks in large part to your continual disinterest in relevant detail) once again.
What black-letter law did I disregard?
As I said, you disregarded the fact that there is a total lack of black-letter law to support your confident declaration. (Then, it would appear, you disregarded the actual text of my sentence to which the above is a response.)
The fact that you don’t recognize the fundamental principles of our legal system….
You are badly confusing your own dubious inferences (and, it would appear, your jurisdictional confusion) with "the fundamental principles of our legal system." More to the point, you are pretending to knowledge of the law that you demonstrably do not possess. It makes little difference whether I'm a judge or whether we're in court; that's seriously objectionable behavior.
I think Anon 6:57 assumes Susan is simply a paralegal. Someone with basic legal knowledge but no where near the educational capacity of a lawyer. To imply otherwise is an insult to attorney's. And there are terrible paralegals out there like there are terrible attorneys and doctors and bus drivers and on and on.
DeleteIf Susan is a paralegal, she's a terrible one. Capiche?
I'm not 6:57 but that's how I read it. No where does it say ALL paralegals. It's a direct statement to Susan and no one else. If Susan is a paralegal, she is a terrible one. It's painfully obvious.
DeleteIsn't there some training involved to be a paralegal? I mean, they don't just let any high school flunkie get the job, right? And I'm pretty sure that paralegals are there to assist and not to school the lawyer or am I wrong about that? And in fact, just like with any other admin assistant, they can be denied promotions and fired for misconduct? And isn't there a code of ethics that paralegals are supposed to operate by or something?
DeleteSee? Look, let me help you anon 11:24.
DeleteIt says SUSAN. Not all paralegals, just SUSAN.
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 6:57 AM
Susan, you stink of paralegal. Better go see if you can loofah that off....
Only a paralegal would take such offense to the statement to bother making the comment you made @ 11:16.
I wonder what else 6:57 knows. Maybe he or she will share with the group? please please
Anonymous @11:12 AM:
DeleteI don’t have much motivation to do it, because you have not owned your shit in the past.
Laughable. I have directly refuted numerous declarations of yours on more than one thread on this blog. In response, you have never even acknowledged the slightest amount of uncertainty, much less conceded any of your demonstrable misstatements of law. Instead, you have simply dropped the issues on which you have been "schooled," or else thrown infantile temper tantrums like this one:
"Attorney" as I read through your various posts, I can see that your knowledge is far more advanced than mine. It was foolish of me to comment on a matter of law in your presence. I have only managed to embarrass myself and I beg your pardon.
With your aptitude for this subject you might consider giving some of your time to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You could probably teach them a thing or two!
For the author of that truculent sneer to accuse anyone of "not own[ing]" his "shit" (and what a mature turn of phrase that is) is a cruel joke. Your entire performance on this weblog has been that of an arrogant infant who is utterly incapable of conceding the possibility that (s)he could possibly be mistaken. By contrast, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, my analysis has constantly emphasized areas of uncertainty and possible mistake. Your hypocrisy is incredible.
I believe I also left the ball in your court on our most recent debate concerning specific personal jurisdiction.
You "believe" falsely and stunningly self-servingly. In that thread, I directly refuted your erroneous declarations pertaining to general jurisdiction and exposed the carelessness with which you worded the particular piece of overconfident and oversimplified analysis you had provided in that thread. Your response was the childish "far more advanced than mine" tantrum quoted above—an act that I pointed out was an admission of defeat on your part, after which I left that thread (you clearly having no intention of providing further commentary that was worthy of a professional).
I now see that two days after your tantrum and a day after I had moved on from the thread, you posted a risible "Let's review" comment in which you addressed none of the points on which I had torn apart your mistakes and carelessness; instead, you attempted to memory-hole those inconvenient details, instead spending six paragraphs complaining about my comments.
All that is irrelevant diversion. You lost the argument about personal jurisdiction, and about your reckless and overbroad statements on that topic. You conceded your loss by responding to a direct refutation with a "far more advanced than mine" whining fit.
Now, in this thread, you've similarly conceded the falsehoods, overconfidence, and thoughtlessness that suffuse your discussion of this thread's topic by whining about "owning shit" rather than addressing the misstatements and misconduct I have demonstrated you to have made and performed.
This is how litigation works. There are legal and factual points, and advocates debate them. Throwing fits to distract attention from one's mistakes and losses does not tend to impress any disinterested observer, whether he or she wears a black robe or not. Quite the opposite.
You have been refuted on these threads. Repeatedly. Your cowardly resort to red herrings does not change that fact.
Susan June 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM
DeleteWow Anon 6:57, I've never heard anyone speak like that about a paralegal. Certainly no lawyer would do so as paralegals can be worth their weight in gold. You are obviously so far outside the legal profession that you have no idea what you are saying. smh
Susan June 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Well Anon 11:22, that is not what Anon 6:57 said. The implication is that there is something terribly wrong with all paralegals. Unless you ARE Anon 6:57, why are you explaining the post?
Hi Suz, anon 6:57 here. Haven't heard a lawyer say such a thing about a paralegal before? Uh, maybe you haven't been around too many attorneys. Or, maybe you just can't hear what they say about you from your cubicle.
Sure, a great support person is invaluable, and they may know their limited area inside and out. They might even have the same intellectual capacity as the people they assist. However, a good paralegal knows their limitations. (just like a good attorney) You, sweetpea, don't have any concept of your own limitations as evidenced by your lack of reading comprehension and all of your sweeping declaratory statements.
"In her book, Access to Justice, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode says: “Over four-fifths of surveyed attorneys have supported prosecution of lay practitioners, and the profession has repeatedly blocked licensing proposals that would enable independent paralegals to offer routine services. Many local, state and national bar associations have recently launched initiatives to broaden the definition, raise the penalties, and increase the enforcement of unauthorized practice prohibitions.” See Access to Justice, Oxford: University Press (2004), at 88."
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralegal
We didn't all decide. But seeing as paralegals are bound to certain ethical standards (and unfortunately not all have education), it is a sobering reality that just anyone can make pretense at being a paralegal even when they are not.
DeleteYou truly hate the word terrorist don't you? Have you talked to the FBI about your concerns? It is their word for him, not ours. Oh and darling, you should know there is a new class of stalker called a revenge/terrorist stalker, and per Billie the stalker's own big mouth, he is one. So you see, the word terrorist fits him in many ways. But you can go argue with the FBI if you disagree.
So, once again, you have no defense, no response to the direct and substantive refutation of numerous statements you have posted on this page.
DeleteYour cowardice is incredible.
All you do is toss temper tantrums Susan. Your laughter is a facade to cover your deep insecurities. You'd be a phenomenal specimen for a psychologist but unfortunately their research would be flawed because of the many masks you wear and the complete lack of accountability and shit-owing for your own actions.
DeleteEven the Attorney can see you for exactly what you are. People who are as mentally ill as you generally are incapable of self awareness because their illness forbids them to look inward.
I agree Attorney, her inability to face anything is quite astounding and worthy of a Windsor narcissist prize. We've watched her do this time and again for many months. Its the only way she can "hide" and cover her severe lack of knowledge in any area.
DeleteAll of her condescending comebacks and games are simple smoke and mirrors to deviate from her original challenges against you and many others. She will not respond in detail to you because she's lacks finite knowledge. It's standard MO with people like her and so easy to spot.
I equally have no doubt this same attitude has driven each and every person from her real life. Clinically speaking, she's a research psychologist's goldmine.
She won't bother arguing with Attorney because she cannot compete in his arena. She's never provided anything substantive because she IS incompetent.
DeleteSusan, have you spoken to the FBI about Billie?? Can you be so sure that we haven't? If not then please don't play dumb about how law enforcement works. I am never casual about the word terrorist. Anytime you want to meet me at the FBI to discuss this matter, I will be there.
DeleteOh and what about Billie calling us terrorists in a casual way? You see, you are not objective after all, you only pretend to be.
DeleteOh and remember, I have it on lofty authority from an anon poster on my blog (Hey, that wouldn't be you by any chance, would it?) that my blog has been read since its inception by the FBI so they can know who they are supposed to kill.
DeleteYou can deny it if you want but SC's are classified as terrorists by the FBI. As for what any agency or LE has or has not told us about Windsor, that is none of your business, and don't you hate that!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, pass mine to Boushie, please. I hear he's out of toilet paper........
ReplyDeleteThat makes more sense to me. I have been confused by the news that he posted a bond ever since I heard it.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you capitalizing "Genii," it's not a proper noun? And, don't you think it's possible you are overusing that word just a tad? Or is that the only word you've got in your bag of tricks?
ReplyDeleteActually Susan, that's where you're mistaken. There was clear documentation and a letter from Windsor that showed him stating he had to provide a $50,000 bond. IF you bothered to see all of this weeks, you would understand.
ReplyDeleteThe attorney provides detailed case law, something you've NEVER done to back up your endless SHIT. The Attorney shows you in great detail exactly where you're wrong and you never own that SHIT either.
You are a very unintelligent person. It's very clear with everything you post.
Furthermore Susan, the Attorney never once implied the bond was fact. He thought it didn't make sense and did question us for backup. How dumb can you be?
ReplyDeleteSusan is stuck on herself, she loves being a troll....waaaahh waaaah Attorney why do you ask me to prove my points
ReplyDeleteAnon @11:22 A.M.:
ReplyDeleteReally Attorney? Then why didn't you ever ask someone to post proof of it, as I did?
Because (1) it was a issue of simple fact that I had no access to, and that more than one person with personal knowledge of the matter attested to, and (2) I didn't much care if it was true or not.
Either you believed Windsor posted that bond (which means you didn't understand Thrash's order)....
Once again, you submit thoughtless, absurd nonsense that simply ignores a myriad of other possibilities. Most notably, there could have been factual circumstances that neither you nor I was aware of—such as one of the defendants being judicial personnel (as I have been in past years), or some office of the Missouri federal or state court applying Thrash's order in a manner contrary to his intention. Unlike you, I was (and remain) well aware of the fact that I don't know everything; unlike you, I have no intention of pretending that there could not be relevant circumstances that lie outside of my knowledge.
As for my response to your comments themselves, I have challenged a number of representations you have made because of your interminable arrogance and the stunning insouciance with which you toss off overconfident and oversimplified, if not outright false, legal analyses of matters being discussed on this blog. Your unethical and objectionable behavior brings shame and embarrassment on my profession (much as Bill Windsor's not dissimilar behavior does), and it risks harming layperson readers who encounter your careless decrees and don't know enough law to question or doubt them.
I challenge and dispute your statements because both my profession and the general blog-reading public deserve better than your behavior.
@ Attorney: Nice job. Your contributions are appreciated.
DeleteSusan continues to prove she is completely incompetent.
DeleteWe can see your incredible rage with our respect for the attorney. He's earned it, he deserves it. We never asked him to come on here and explain a thing. We appreciate all he provides.
DeleteUnfortunately Susan, we DO understand this is the type of "GLORY" you so needed from us and did not receive. That is your doing, not ours yet you feel the need to keep 'punishing' us with your presence. You must be unbelievably lonely and completely alone in your world. How sad really :(
Hating? no
Deleteexposing YES :)
Why are you so obsessed with us? Why the jealousy? Why the rage and hatred? How sad Susan :(
Susan, exactly how was it established that Billie was a fraud? Let's hear it from your point of view.
DeleteJealous absolutely. You wanted to come here with Windsor information and become the center of attention but your revolting personality stops people from taking a liking to you. Sadly I do see how that transfers into your real life. I don't for one second believe you were a victim of corruption in any sense. It's all make believe in your head, just like little Willy.
DeleteI pray with everything in me you've never reproduced or have children Susan. I hope if you did, they were removed from your care early on before their brains could hardwire. Young children still have a chance at being healthy given the right environment.
DeletePlease get help Susan, you're not doing well at all. your analogy's to Ginger is also completely inaccurate. You'd like for this group to implode so your own dark world can make sense again.
DeleteWe are exposing Windsor and other criminals to help others and we've helped many people. That's where your rage and jealousy comes in. It's something you've never been able to accomplish in life no matter how hard you try. Therefore it's easier for you to degrade those doing real good in the world and standing up against Evil like Windsor and others because you are one of them.
You've shown everyone your true colors, you've played your hand. When asked in a respectable manner to prove your own shit and back up your statements with extensive court findings or case law, you attack, bolt and run in attempts to deflect from your own incompetence.
Please go get help before it's too late. I'm not being snarky or hurtful, I'm doing my best to be genuine especially after reading your party of 1 blog this evening, the amount of energy you've spent copying/pasting and replying to yourself demonstrates a clear break with reality.
I see something in you the past couple of day's I've never seen before. I don't know if there's some hurtful anniversary this time of year that causes you pain or what's happened lately but you're not doing well at all.
I fear for you and those around your real world. It would be healthy to walk away from the computer for a few days and collect your thoughts.
Umm no, this is not your blog. This blog does not have to conform to your expectations. It is a meeting point. You want a catalogue? Ok, you've got one: your own. But when you decide to make falsified posts about others because you don't like that they have asked you to be kind to others, then your site is just as falsified as you are accusing others of being. No, Ginger is not anything like Billie and you should know better than that.
DeleteWhat is interesting about the sovereigns is how they use distancing language to shield themselves from reality, to an absurd sense. They think they can copyright their name or write in red crayon. Anything and everything, they have so many tricks to show their complete contempt for authority. And they seem to think that if they use these distancing tricks that the government or authority will be shown to be invalid. Susan called us Genii to separate herself from us. She had to, because Lord knows once Billie gets all the IP's on this site traced, there will be hell to pay. But she started using that phrase to Attorney, to imply that she wasn't one of us, but neither was he. She wanted his approval, and didn't get it. And now rather than admit her own lack of education and incompetence, she has to use quotation marks to make him invalid. And she simply ignores people and conversations and questions she doesn't care to answer. It's a very predatory, self serving movement that almost demands a complete break from reality in order to follow.
DeleteI find your claim of raising successful children highly doubtful. But maybe you need that fantasy to cope so I'll empathize.
DeleteWe haven't told the attorney your actual location Susan and we know you're definitely not in California. That's the opposite side of the USA. If it makes you feel safe that your actual identity is hidden keep telling yourself that. I know it's never been mentioned on this blog, some have speculated and they're all wrong.
maryland
DeleteNo I never said you were an SC and you never said that you are not. However, there are certain traits and they are fascinating. It's a very predatory, self-serving, and ultimately self destructive philosophy. Guilty conscious?
DeleteThat is right...Maryland. Close enough to join LNM in her meeting with the FBI!
DeleteFor the record, I am not a SC.
Hmmm, predatory, like having a blog to hate on someone? Self-serving...like making up facts about your target in order to justify your behavior towards him? Self destructive...like surrounding yourself with fellow haters and spending an inordinate amount of time finding ways to criticize your target? So then, all of the GENII are SC's! Thanks for clearing that up!
Well, anytime you want to make that appointment just let me know. I happen to know the staff at the Baltimore office are very kind.
DeleteAnd you sound like a psycho-ex, are you sure you don't have feelings for Billie Boy?
get help Susan
Deleteyou know you won't meet with LNM because you won't expose your presumed hidden identity. Keep presuming.
Thanks for playing today. Human behavior tends to be a calculated response to environment ;-). You confirmed many things by your out of control emotional need to respond. You should learn to keep that in check. Posting as an anon, you cannot delete what you've offered.
Thanks for playing, it worked like a charm.
No Susan, it is you who is escalating.
DeleteMy offer has always been that those who think I am a criminal can make an appointment with the FBI.
There are different senses of crazy? Googling that, lol...
DeleteMake yourself useful. Contact LNM and tell her to read my post. She's in enough trouble already, the sooner she retracts the better off she'll be.
DeleteShe's not, but you are. Just keep going Susan Harbison. This is gonna be epic.
DeleteLMAO. And she says she's not a plant. I think at this point that the plant kingdom has greater intelligence.
DeleteIt seems that Susan's real issues and contentions with us here at the blog lie within her original ousting from Bill way back before they launched Lawless America. While she bragged about being a part of the original group, she seemed bitter that Bill got to choose the name.
ReplyDeleteIn my honest opinion the reason she is so touchy about the "terrorist" wording is that she still believes in the premise that Bill seems to have detracted from for his new favorite past time, stalking. She will defend the actions that the group was to take, and the SC connections. It just seems so transparent really, when looking back at how she was so upset with Bill, yet defends him.
She was/is bitter because she thought she could hijack Lawless America and double talk her way into the limelight. Except, Windsor wouldn't let that happen. So, she is bitter, just like Bill and she is trying to take away from the validity of what is posted here about the true motives or appearance of what truly was the goal of the Lawless America Revolution.
I highly doubt anyone would spend as much time picking fights and arguing with the posters here, if she didn't somehow still have some desires to take over LA. It really sounds like she would like to oust Bill, and become the "star" of this fake show, and continue down the seemingly terroristic path.
I wonder if she lives in Michigan?
DeleteAnon 10:41 you are always my fave anon anon. I remember you. Always good posts.
DeleteBob, my guess (for reasons noted upthread on this page) is California. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that, though.
Delete@"Attorney": "Bob, my guess (for reasons noted upthread on this page) is California. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that, though."
DeleteThere is no fooling you "Attorney", lmao.
lmfao
Deleteyes your level of obsession with Windsor's world and coming here as some WIndsor expert, I'm sure it was a mere 6 weeks. Don't you recall bragging you knew the first year of Windsor's beginnings?
It's very clear you are deeply obsessed with him and with us. The jealousy and envy that oozes out of you is astounding. You don't understand how transparent you really are Susan.
Sorry to disappoint you again Susan, but I am not anon and I am not Allie. You love to jump to conclusions about us. You can get huffy and puffy all you want, but as you REFUSE to tell the truth about who you are and why and when you became involved with Billie FROM THE BEGINNING, it is YOUR FAULT, not ours, that we do not understand your obsession with him.
DeleteUm, no. You have never told me the complete story, and I refuse to believe your half story without the full truth. You are very, very vicious and angry. We must have hit pretty close to home. You aren't even hiding it anymore how petty and vindictive you are. Very sad.
DeleteSusan you suffer from at least 2 mental disorders. You need help. I'm sorry you cannot see that but the lengths you carry on has shown how bad off you are. Please get help before you hurt yourself or someone close to you.
DeleteJeannie
DeleteEdward
Mary
@Anon 11:38: "Actually Susan, that's where you're mistaken. There was clear documentation and a letter from Windsor that showed him stating he had to provide a $50,000 bond."
ReplyDeleteBahahahahaha, I see now, you were going by what WINDSOR told you! HOW stupid is that?
No dear, it's what Windsor told the judge in court documents silly. I guess you don't know how to read. :(...
ReplyDeleteWe can see how stupid you are and your incredulous need to kick others so you can feel better about yourself. Unfortunately for you it's having the opposite affect. What you don't see is the extensive convo's behind the scenes. We keep egging you on so you keep proving WHAT you are :) see how that works?
Thank you for continuing to fall for the bait. It's us who is truly having the last laugh ;-)
stop it
ReplyDeleteMagnus. Oh, gosh. So much strength in one place.....Attorney and Magnus.....my world is complete.......
DeleteDo you think we are afraid of the word, Genii? It's the plural form of genius, sure. But it is also the plural form of genie.
ReplyDeleteWow. No I never changed my argument. However, your argument is not with me, it is with the FBI, so why don't you go harass them? And it really is not any of your business if people have consulted with law enforcement what has been said to them. The problem with your black and white thinking, as the attorney has schooled you is that you are unable to see all the possibilities, and consequently your ability to understand is hindered. BTW, there are 20 questions up there that you have refused to answer.
ReplyDelete