Lawless America, the scam, is now over. Bill announced the news of its death this morning on the comment section of his personal facebook page. But don't worry, Bill will still eat pie and stalk as many people as he can, he just needs to come up with a new scam as this one has run is course.
Bill gave us several updates over the weekend before this announcement:
BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA IS TAKING A WEEK OR SO OFF "or so" meaning forever. IF YOU KNOW WHERE THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN, YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS TODAY. Kansas City, what do I win?
But if you know, please don't tell. oh crap, sorry about that
I devoted most of yesterday to filing various legal motions against Allie Overstreet which will be laughed out of the courtroom in short order. I am suing her for mega damages you probably should be specific, but why start now? in court in Lafayette County Missouri.
I have said to myself since there is no one else to listen I guess you are the only one left to talk to that I will resolve my living arrangements by midnight Sunday or hopefully law enforcement can resolve them for you. I will finish looking at potential places to live this weekend.
Facebook continues to pretend that www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica had nudity on it. Now Facebook has money "now", when did they not?. Maybe I can get a lawsuit to stick against them ummm no because they also have real attorneys. I'll file when I get to California. ahhh trick answer because you are not going to California
It's laundry night. yeah hurry up and wash those Lawless shirts before they start to fade
I continue to get asked out on dates by women take that Barbara. It's very flattering and I like to be flattered. I had no idea women were so aggressive ummmm well thats because there is another word behind them....desperate, but that will be a new lesson for ya. It certainly makes life easier on us shy out-of-practice bachelors yeah you are a really shy guy with over 400 hours of youtube vidoes, why don't you come out of your shell?. But I'm not yet comfortable with actually having a date unless you can work out the details of the payment ahead of time?. I've been divorced for 18 days but separated for many years .
Then we get the goodbye cruel world post:
Bill Windsor I likely won't be in New York or California or anywhere but South Dakota unless or until we get funding. I can't afford to keep going. So, I will do the TV pilot, and then will hunker down and focus all of my efforts on obtaining funding.
So the time of death was actually last weekend during his Salt Lake video. Its over its done with and he has nothing to show for it, not even a preview clip. Now he must go in to hiding and try and retool everything in to a new scam. But this time he doesn't have anyone to hide all his assets under, he ha exposed himself.
Thx to the clubhouse for keeping on this pig!
ReplyDeleteI guess it will stop when he gets to jail, or he goes to hell.
At least the cult of LAis over and his likelihood of being successful in further pie eating will be a bit less Thx to the exposure of a cookie and friends!
:-)
Dear ball-less fat boy wonder,
I have a new .45 why dontcha pop on down here to Topeka Ill teach ya how to handle a stalker.
BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA IS TAKING A FEW DAYS OFF TO ATTEND TO PERSONAL BUSINESS. IF YOU KNOW WHERE THIS IS, YOU KNOW ONE OF THE PLACES HE HAS BEEN.
ReplyDeleteBut don't tell anyone.
I've been doing a lot of driving. So what else is new, huh?
I received another death threat from Montana. I'll post it on www.SeanBoushie.com.
To reach Bill Windsor and Lawless America, email nobodies@att.net
That is the second post in a row that says the same thing. He can't even be bothered to be original. Read the comments under that post. First he says to one person he will be in NY hopefully in Aug. Then a few comments down, he contradicts himself to say what Ginger posted above.
DeleteOh, you cant go read the comments. It seems that post is gone entirely, including his comment. Now, why remove it if it? Hiding something Bill?
maybe he wants me to take mine down too. Sorry Bill, its been called, time of death was 9 day ago. Its all over but the crying
DeleteI am in New York city area maybe he want to stalk me next
DeleteROFLMAO
Delete"maybe he wants me to take mine down too. Sorry Bill, its been called, time of death was 9 day ago. Its all over but the crying"
HA HA HA HA any one got a tissue???
Some how I hear "turn out the lights" being sung.
ReplyDeleteThe photo he had posted is java hut, in Houston. From kc, to Houston in 2 days. Going to beg Ryan for cash Billy?
ReplyDeleteRyan lives in Austin. I don't believe he's in Houston based on some stock photo, he's just messing with people
DeleteI agree the Chile picture was from GA, he is just messing with people
DeleteAnd we him.. Don't worry, I'm up on his tricks.
ReplyDeleteI kinda like this one. From me.com.
ReplyDelete"Sean Boushie of the University of Montana emails Bill Windsor to call him “a little dicked coward”"
ha ha ha ha ha
Deletewell at least he said he had one. I STRONGLY disagree.
There aint anything there but a dried up capillary.
I am suing her for mega damages you probably should be specific, but why start now?
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great suggestion Hopper. What is the specific value on a reputation?
Are you suggesting Windsor actually has a legitimate cause of action against Overstreet? Do tell.
DeleteI think a great argument can be made that Billie is libel proof.
Deletehttp://www.speechandprivacy.com/2011/05/what-is-libel-proof-plaintiff.html
Anonymous is Susan who can't understand Windsor doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning.
DeleteYa, it is looking more and more like "Susan" may be Vexi herself, and that's why she always defends Vexi-boy's "right" to sue the world. I bet there is a good story there...
DeleteJust curious...what is this word "Ya"? I don't see it in the internet slang lexicon. ???
DeleteThought you knew everything. Awwww...um, ya!
DeleteGuess I'm not that familiar with whatever street language that is. I appreciate your confidence in my knowledge base and I assume that comes from your clairvoyance, but let the record show I have never claimed to know everything, lol!
DeleteYa it does, and I know you don't know everything, (I have no confidence in your knowledge base BTW) even though your continual posts to correct, or educate the blog make you appear to feel superior and or make you come across as a know it all. Validation you don't know everything, is that you misread my comment, assuming I said you said you knew everything. (BTW are you having a bad hair day)
DeleteNo, I very clearly responded to your statement that you "THOUGHT" I knew everything. Hence the clairvoyance comment. My disclaimer, was intended to show that your belief was not based on any false claims made by me! Try to follow along.
DeleteA clairvoyant doesn't "think" they know. OOPS. More validation you know nothing, is you can't read sarcasm. Hint should have been the Awwww behind the sarcastic comment. Revert to the basis of the previous comment explanation for the sarcasm. You thought a sarcastic comment was a belief, you think so highly of yourself. Bahahahaha.
DeleteI see I've got to speak to you on your own level. I'm the rubber, you're the glue, everything you say, sticks back to you. Na na na na na....
DeleteOh I GOT your posts. Are you under the impression I was trying to be funny? If so, you obviously do not get my posts!
DeleteWhat credit did Sluggo give me?
My comment was limited to Hopper's comment that Willy should be specific in his damage request. People RARELY ask for a specific amount when suing for libel. A jury cannot ever award MORE than the specified amount, so why put a cap on the possible award?
ReplyDeleteThe value of a reputation is determined on a case by case basis by a jury.
@Sluggo: I looked carefully at the complaint once and identified a couple of statements that are definitely actionable. If the court does its job and views the complaint in an unbiased manner, it should survive a motion to dismiss. An argument can be made that Willy is libel proof. I don't remember the specific statements that I thought crossed the line. One can be libel proof in some respects and not in others. It's all very fact specific.
And no, I'm not going to provide a citation. Believe what I wrote or don't, it's not my problem, lol.
In that case, I would LOVE to read your reasoning, because IMHO, his case is going to get flushed quickly, but I could be wrong.
Delete@Sluggo: This is some of what I wrote off the top of my head after reading the complaint when it was filed. It should provide plenty of grist for the mill and it is offered only for that purpose. I won't be briefing any of what I state below, lol.
DeleteThe facts alleged do not support any legal claim against Mark. He should easily win a dismissal.
I don’t see any basis for Willy’s claims of invasion of privacy against anyone.
I think Allie’s post from 9-23-12 is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for libel. A biased or incompetent court can easily pass a statement off as opinion, because that question often involves hair splitting. But in my view there are statements here that imply the existence of defamatory facts. Allie's previous position as an "insider" would lead a reasonable person to believe she has knowledge to support the accusations.
Allie infers there is something shady about how Willy handles donations, she makes it sound like he is on the Homeland Security list, her comment about the cops chasing him implies he committed a crime. These are very serious accusations.
It is true that Willy has a well deserved reputation as a liar and his bizarre behavior makes him look like a nut, lol. BUT, as far as I know, he has done nothing to deserve a reputation as a con artist, a criminal, a terrorist, or a fugitive. Allie's comments drag his reputation down to a much lower level.
I do not agree that the case should be dismissed. However, since he is representing himself and has NO CLUE what he is doing, I agree with you that it will be flushed.
A state court judge is going to do whatever he wants with the complaint. Here there will be a natural bias against a vexatious litigant, a bias against someone that has spent the past three years attacking the courts, a home court advantage to Allie, and the court is likely friendly with Allie's attorney. Even if the court were to rise above all of those conflicts of interest, the court may actually believe it is doing Willy a favor by dismissing it early because the court believes Willy could never win in front of a jury, regardless of the merits. All of these factors enter into how courts decide things...what the LAW requires, is a secondary consideration.
All of the above is merely my own opinion. I'm not going to brief any of it for anyone, nor do I plan to submit a resume.
"Here there will be a natural bias against a vexatious litigant, a bias against someone that has spent the past three years attacking the courts"
DeleteYou make it sound like thats a bad thing. The court system should have a bias against those who have already abused it in the past. To ignore someone's long documented history of abuse in a directly relevant manner is lunacy. You "Me The People" vagabonds all try and capitalize on the assumption that all your rights are somehow "reset" by simply filing a new case in a different court. No, you should have to account for your past and I'm proud of our court system for doing that.
Hopper, I have no idea where you are getting this "Me The People" stuff. You seem to have dreamed up an awful lot of ideas about how I think and what I believe. You have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't reflect well on your level of intelligence that you constantly fill in the blanks with fictional facts that support your agenda.
DeleteFYI, our "court system" disagrees with your theory that people should "account" for previous VL behavior. Being a VL does not change anyone's RIGHTS. There is no right to file a complaint without leave, so this hurtle is imposed on the VL. There is no RIGHT to file a complaint without posting a bond, so this hurtle is sometimes imposed on a VL. There IS a RIGHT to file a colorable claim and once filed, that claim must be dealt with without bias.
You seem to think our system seeks to PUNISH VLs. It does not. It merely tries to intercept future bad suits before they get on the docket. It's not a punishment, it's just a PRECAUTION.
And I bet stumbling on that hurdle hurts.
Delete@That's a very profound post LKN. Your contributions are so insightful.
DeleteThose hurtles actually serve to protect VLs from themselves. Most VLs really don't understand the law, but they think they do. The sooner they find out they haven't really stated a claim, the better it is for them. So does it hurt for them to have a judge look over the complaint before they pay a filing fee? I doubt it.
"You seem to think our system seeks to PUNISH VLs. It does not. It merely tries to intercept future bad suits before they get on the docket. It's not a punishment, it's just a PRECAUTION"
DeleteThats exactly what a bias is. I didn't say he didn't have the right to not try and file, but he is treated differently than a normal person would be.
h-u-r-D-l-e-s not hurtles.
Deletelike girdle, not turtle.
:-)
Yes, verbal irony so often is insightful, but only to the informed.
DeleteYou have lost me Hopper. I really don't feel like arguing semantics. You can take the win on this one.
Delete@3:18: Thanks for the education. Learning is good!
Delete@4:03: Time for your nap, you are getting cranky.
Delete@ Gingersnap: Ditto re: your 2:40 comment.
DeleteRe: Susie's comment "There IS a RIGHT to file a colorable claim" - it's curious that vexatious litigants have so many "colorable claims". How many "colorable claims" does the average American have in a life time that requires court intervention or decision in order to resolve? What is the ratio to the average number of claims filed before a claimant is declared vexatious?
Where's the math whiz Anon that was all worried about ellipses accuracy??
BUT, as far as I know, he has done nothing to deserve a reputation as a con artist, a criminal, a terrorist, or a fugitive.
DeleteSusan,
I think you're ignorant on the facts; therefore, with respect to your assertion above, we absolutely disagree.
@Sluggo: I will look forward to hearing the basis for your position. Maybe he's done some stuff that was not blasted all over the Net so I missed it???
DeleteLet's face it, all of those words are subject to a certain amount of interpretation, especially "con artist". I think I called him that myself with regard to his outrageous "biography" of misleading implications. I still don't see criminal, fugitive, or terrorist though.
@ 11:39 Fortunately, it doesn't matter what you see.
DeleteOoops, too bad I can't edit. I should not say a jury can never award more than the damage request. That fact may vary from state to state.
ReplyDeleteOH NO! I've been found out! I've been accused of being so many people, but now someone has figured out I am Willy himself. And that makes SO much sense given all the things I've written about Willy. smh
ReplyDelete@ Susan
DeleteWe can see why you're so bitter and full of rage.
/* Begin sarcasm */
DeleteHow could ANYONE ever figure out who you are when you post as Anonymous?
/* End sarcasm */
Who are you adressing slugo?
DeleteI was addressing Anon 1:37.
DeleteBTW, If you want to be credible, then you should provide your legal reasoning and citations here, IMHO. Moreover, at the very least, you should refrain from LOLing at those involved. For those who know me, I don't equivocate like Bill Windsor.
So, if you think Billy is a wonderful person, fine. I will never see it that way; in fact, I HAVE MORE REGARD FOR A COCK ROACH THAN I DO BILLY WINDSOR. Are we clear?
@Sluggo: Are you telling me they don't let you see IPs? As long as you have been around, and as valuable as you are to this forum, they are not letting you "in"? Just how small do that keep their little inner circle here? I can't believe they are keeping you in the dark, smh.
DeleteI am very much against the use of Anon. But that is how they like it here and I live to please.
There is no "they". You can say it over and over as many times as you want, like bill saying he is filming for a movie, but it doesn't make it true. There is no "they" only an "I"
Delete@Hopper: Really? You are the only one that can see IPs? I was clearly told many months ago that a click of the mouse would reveal the true author of a post. So if it is not IPs that reveal the identity, perhaps there is some other information that is seen by some and not by others?
DeleteAll I know is that the regulars here can obviously tell one poster from another, even if it is a one word post. That information is what keeps them from arguing with their own friends on here, lol. Yappy can come on and make some stupid comment as an anon and no regular will argue with her, because they can see who is behind that anon.
@OReader: You are over thinking my comments. I am TRULY amazed that Sluggo does not have access to the same information as the "regulars" as by now, I consider him a regular. I am just expressing my surprise. I HARDLY expect Sluggo to get mad over it as I suspect HE is well aware of it anyway.
Susan,
DeleteOf course I knew it was you...I was being sarcastic about using Anonymous; hence, the /* Sarcasm */ tags. No, I'm not part of the admin so I don't have see IPs.
the regulars have no access to any information any more or less than Sluggo Susan but I can understand why you'd want to make someone believe that. Ginger is the one that can see IP's. If Sluggo wants to ask Ginger who is behind an IP, he like the rest of the regulars can do so.
DeleteSusan, your punching bag isn't around
Delete@Sluggo: Oh, now I see, you thought this was directed at you: And no, I'm not going to provide a citation. Believe what I wrote or don't, it's not my problem, lol.
DeleteNo, I was addressing some others here that seem to think I care if they believe me or not. I can see how you thought I was addressing you, but that last paragraph was not directed at you, sorry for the confusion.
The problem with your request for citations is that it would take a long brief to present the basis for my evaluation of the strength of Willy's case. I'm not going to provide that kind of information here, but I will make some bald statements about the legal questions to point you towards locating the information yourself.
Once in a while, it is easy to apply one citation to support a position. But here we are talking about fact specific questions of law. There is not going to be a citation to a finding on the exact same fact patterns presented by Willy's complaint. Some of the questions that must be decided before anyone can reach a conclusion on just ONE of the complained of publications are:
Did the defendant PUBLISH (meaning did she relay the message to a single third party) a false defamatory statement of fact, about the plaintiff, causing damage to him?
Publication, the defamatory nature of the comments, and the identification of Willy should be easily proven. Falsity is presumed unless the defendant proves otherwise.
But Is the defamatory comment a statement of fact, of implied fact, or is it protected opinion? These are questions of law. Some questions of law have an absolute answer. These questions, do not. There is no bright line test that compels a court to decide these questions in any given way. The court has to base its decision on an understanding of defamation law as a whole and in light of available authority.
If the court decides everything Ally said was "opinion", it can dismiss the case right away. This is the ONLY ground I can see the court using for immediate dismissal. Of course Willy could appeal the dismissal.
If the court finds Ally made even one defamatory statement of fact, another question is whether Willy is a public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. If deemed a public figure, Willy has to prove Ally made her comments maliciously. However malice is a jury question so she should not be able to get a pretrial dismissal on for lack of evidence of malice. I doubt he would have any trouble proving malice anyway. The limited public figure status means that SOME statements about him require a finding of malice, while others would not. The private citizen status means Ally only had to be negligent in making the statements and negligence is a tiny HURTLE for the plaintiff, lol.
I don't think the court has the authority to decide (at least not without an evidentiary hearing) whether Willy is libel proof. But if the court did make that determination it would be grounds for dismissal. I would be shocked by such a finding. I think at best Willy's prior reputation will be useful to mitigate any award of damages. Damage to a stellar reputation is obviously worse more money than damage to an already well tarnished reputation.
Can Allie prove her statements are true? Unless she has a boatload of irrefutable evidence, truth is a question for the jury.
Keep in mind that all of these questions have to be considered for EACH separate publication.
In my opinion the only borderline question in this case is whether the statements qualify as opinion. The judge can do whatever he wants with that question as there is no absolute right or wrong decision. In my view, the statements at the very least implied defamatory facts. What the judge will decide, is anyone's guess. There are all kinds of judges out there, lol, and all kinds of results. It's really a crapshoot for all of the litigants.
Can you please explain your usage?
DeleteAs a noun, hurdle refers to an obstacle or barrier. The verb hurdle means to leap over or overcome an obstacle. Hurtle is a verb that means to move with great speed or throw with great force.
There will be no jury, that was denied by the court. It's a shocker you lost as pro se in your own case Susan.
DeleteOf course she won't provide anything to Sluggo. She's never offered up anything on the blog except generalities. Once again proving how little you know.
DeleteOMG 4:53, I sincerely acknowledged that the word is hurdle at 3:34 then I repeated my error in a later post. Obviously it's one of those words that is incorrectly embedded in my head. I've got LOTS of "corrupted files" in my head, lol.
DeleteI am cool with such human failings. But thanks again for straightening me out...I do aim for perfection, while knowing I will never attain it!
@Anon 5:25: Can you direct me to the order that denies Willy his constitutional right to a jury in a civil case? THAT will be of great interest to me!
Delete@Anon 6:07 Can you direct me to the order that denies John Doe his constitutional right to vote for president at the county courthouse tomorrow?
DeleteSusan, I see you deny your own pro se failures by avoiding.
Delete@Anon 7:54: I have no idea what you are talking about. I think someone made similar comments yesterday and I asked for but didn't get clarification. I assume you are that person.
DeleteBtw, I see you are never going to get over the fact that CPS found you to be an unfit mother because of your drug use.
Is there any chance we can resolve yet another bit of misinformation that has floated around here. Is there or isn't there an order denying Windsor a jury?
DeleteNo one here has CPS issues in any capacity so you're barking up the wrong tree pro se "failure at everything" Snoozan.
DeleteIt's not misinformation information, it's information you are not privy too. Boo hoo hoo. Find it yourself.
Delete(why you would think that information would be shared with you, after all the horrible stuff you've said...)
Don't answer, it was rhetorical.
lol your moron bf tell you that?
DeleteAgain, thick one..."why you would think that information would be shared with you, after all the horrible stuff you've said..."
Delete@Susan is a Troll: I am Susan. Anon 8:49 is not me.
Deletelol testy testy
Deleteyou have no idea how stupid you make yourself look 11:36
Delete@Anon 8:20: A state court judge has no authority to deny a civil litigant a trial by jury. There is this thing called the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution that the judge has to follow. It has big words, don't bother trying to read it.
DeleteIt IS possible for Windsor to waive a jury trial, but that is entirely different than the court denying him the right.
@Anon 11:55: You are hurting my feelings. It would be so embarrassing to look stupid in front of the GENII!
DeleteGet over it, the courts denied him. Being a pro se yourself Susan, you interpret and twist things that fit your definition just like Willy.
Deleteyou have no idea how stupid you make yourself look 12:00
DeletePlease continue
Oh, I see he has demanded a jury trial. So there is no waiver. Now I am REALLY anxious to find this special order denying his seventh amendment right.
DeleteYes Anon 12:02, I have twisted the US Constitution to fit my needs in this argument. I twisted the Missouri rules of civil procedure while I was at it. You caught me.
Clearly there is no such order, lol, since someone here is having a little hissy fit that I asked to see it, lmao.
How is that Anon 12:03...do you need more?
only hissy is you Snoozan
Delete@Anon 12:15: I think eleven posts that basically say nothing more than, "we don't have to show you our proof" is a bit excessive. Why so defensive?
DeleteLOL, one thing is for sure. If any of you had any order, you'd have put it here in a heartbeat, to show me how wrong I am. This is a repeat of the, "Willy paid a bond" correction.
As much fun as it is, I have better things to do right now than to watch you all squirm. I'll give you a hint. Willy WAS denied a jury for the PO hearing. He was not entitled to a jury for that proceeding. Now he is bringing civil claims. He is entitled to a jury in that case. I hope that helps, but I know it won't, lmao!
Good night GENII!
if you had any citations or knowledge you'd place it on here. Instead you continue to prove how stupid you are. You post lies from your bf in an attempt to attack, you beg for the court findings because you refuse to take someone's word for it PLUS you're too stupid to find them yourself. You refuse to back up your own claims, stating Sluggo should just take your word for it.
DeleteYou have an amazing talent at deflecting and diversion in order to avoid demonstrating how little knowledge you have Susan but you fool no one but yourself. lmao Hope that helps.
How does it feel to be hated by so many on top of being insanely ragingly jealous of some on this blog Susan? lmao
DeleteOh, sorry, I'm multi-tasking. I see that no one HAS figured out I'm Windsor but instead, thinks I am a vexatious litigant. That is just as funny. Gotta love the thought process here.
ReplyDeleteWindsor doesn't think he is vexatious either. OHHHHHH
DeleteFirst, people don't multi-task well--not you--not even moms--and that's an empirical, scientific fact. If they did, they could drive and text at the same time safely, but that's not the case. The fact is, people who drive and text are as dangerous as those who drink and drive. Second, there is more than one thought process here because there is more than one person here.
Delete@Sluggo: I KNOW people don't multi-task well. That was my point. It was because I was multi-tasking that I misread the post at 1:34.
DeleteOk, I'll stand corrected on that then. What about the other point, ie, that there is more than one thought process here. See, I think people take offense when they're put in a single class-- the "stupid Joeys" class--that was my main point. :-)
DeleteI'm a little overwhelmed by all of the owning of shit here this week. I did it myself several times, then nbwhatever did it yesterday!, now Sluggo has done it. Where is this going to end?
DeleteYou've never done it Susan, we're all still waiting
DeleteI don't know how to respond to that except it puts me in a very awkward position here in that I could wind up p*ssing everyone off. In any case, I respectfully submit this to all parties concerned: I wish we could all civilly agree to disagree when disputes arise. IMO, there are many times when we talk (write) past each other and create disputes where none exist, and further, it's not a sign of weakness to admit one was wrong and to stand corrected. That's all I got. :-)
DeleteI would much prefer to be known as the "Rodney Dangerfield of the Joeys" and not its Rodney King, but I will gladly accept the role if it results in more light and less heat. I have asked Susan to remove her disparaging remarks from her blog. In the interest of equity, what is it the Joeys can offer her? Perhaps a truce?
DeleteAlso, can someone *please* buy Sean F. a bucket of commas? His sentences are as long as a freight train out of Georgia. Thank you. :-)
I think everyone loves Sluggo, he bring da funny.
DeleteI have been trying to ignore Susan for quite a while now. She simply can not contain herself and must keep coming over to this blog, that she says is nothing but a bunch of idiots, and kee on posting stuff. With Blogspot I can't ban, I can't edit comments. The only thing I can do is delete and hope that eventually the comments will start being filtered as spam.
But I am more than happy to stop talking to or about her. Her existence on this earth means nothing to me. The person I think we really need to talk about is George McDermot's assistant Sharon Galloway. I think maybe its time to leave Susan alone and start to look at just how involved this Sharon woman is in all this.
@Sluggo: Don't risk guilt by association here by being polite to me, lol. It's just not necessary, but thanks for the thought!
DeleteSounds like you're threatening Sluggo.
Delete@Sluggo: I have bushels of commas to give Sean. If I give some away I might be able to stop overusing them. If only it were that easy!
Delete"I have said to myself that I will resolve my living arrangements by midnight Sunday"
ReplyDeleteThis is just plain weird. Talking to himself and OCD (deadline of the stroke of midnight).
Hey Ginger Snap, if you find out that he is coming to NYC area to stalk me, Can you please help me to get him on the Jerry Springer show?......
ReplyDeleteI think we can pull that off
DeleteMaybe someone needs to make a facebook page to get Jerry Springer to have a mock trial with him.....
DeleteSent this to Jerry Facebook page
DeleteHello, I am being stalk by this Man the FBI called An America terrorist and is conning people out of thousands of dollars saying he is filming a movie........ Would you like to have a mock trial with this buffoon? if so please post on Joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com if you like this idea.....
In Detroit, BW has been axed to speak at what has been called a "LA Round up" on August 10th. Albeit, it was written by a buffoon, perhaps the other buffoon will slither on up.
ReplyDeleteI don't see where BW was asked to speak. If this is the comment you are referring to, he just asked him if he could go. He hasn't even acknowledged the comment. Nothing new.
Delete"Marty Prehn What are the chances of you being in Metro Detroit on August 10th for a HEROES convention and my memorial service?"
LMAO
ReplyDeleteOh no Mr bill threats???
Nope
Its an ABSOLUTE FACT The 2nd Amendment.
You betcha!!! Road TRIP!!!
Anon your speaking if marty phren who is a body guard for pastor terry jones from floria who comes to dearborn michigan to hate on muslims. Phren believes there are terror
ReplyDeleteCells in the city of dearborn and makes all sorts of conclusions or assuptions. They basically come thetr and atart a fight with a arab community.
He is not a body guard for anybody. Guy in the crowd who latches onto any notoriety he can fabricate.
DeleteYou should know better, Sean. I'm in Toledo and you're in his backyard.
Well, it does look like the minions have dropped off the cliff and have no place to go except here to the comment sections.
ReplyDeleteLOL - KARMA
@ S. Fleming - check FB
ReplyDeleteSean - you should axe your friend up there if he's branching out on his own. It looks like he has his own, new and improved, scam going.
ReplyDeleteThis, from the "Regional Director of LA". That's a title I wouldn't wish on anybody.
Don't be coy. Why don't you tell us what's he's up to?
DeleteI be coy. Read for yourself.
DeleteI want to hear more about this Sharon Galloway, she seems to like some Ghost box, and seems to be as mentally ill as Susan- Anon
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. Was that a question?
ReplyDeleteCan somebody lend Sean some apostrophes and a few more of that elusive fifth letter of the alphabet? I think they'd go nicely with the commas . . . . just sayin' . . .
ReplyDeleteThe grammar police seem to be awfully selective. There are others more deserving of attention that Fleming, i.e go "axe" a certain Anon if we are supposed to chop wood or ask questions. There are more than a few with run on sentences and missing a few commas or apostrophes...just sayin...
ReplyDeleteMy only request for Sean, since the subject was broached, is when he does a long entry please for the love of God give us some paragraph breaks.
ReplyDeleteNB,
ReplyDeleteI was referring to continual use of the wrong word - you're vs your. Regarding the "axed" to speak, I wasn't positive if the anon meant he was "asked" to speak or he was "axed" (as in removed) from speaking at the event. I also saw it as a potential auto-correct error if anon was using a cell phone . . .
It's the repeated misuse of your vs you're that kills my soul. And no, it's not just Sean, but he did it in at least a couple of comments that I saw back to back.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m5IRSaR13_Q/UEaNfMMAp8I/AAAAAAAAUIs/gsvX6ZqrdEw/s1600/your-youre.jpg
ReplyDeletewho cares
ReplyDeleteUsing "axe" vs "ask" is an intentional jab at the grammatically illiterate.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually the way I read it the first time. It was too far out there to assume that it wasn't intentional. Then everybody jumped on it, and I thought it might have the other meaning, or it might be an auto-correct snafu.
DeleteYeah, but nuttin' get past ol' NBTDT...
DeleteI agree with Gingersnap. Other than paragraph breaks, I really don't care sh*t about how people write. Unless there is a grade when this is all over. Is any body grading? Typing "your" when I meant "you're'" I'm know I've made that mistake a few times. Do I get extra credit for pointing out my own mistakes?
ReplyDeleteWhat doesn't get past me is bulling behavior, that was the point.
Oh, geez! Look I made another mistake. I put a 'm after I. More extra credit?
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with my grammar.
ReplyDeleteJust axe Rev. Al Sharpton.
He learnt it gooder then you.
University of Montana students are asked to appear on Lawless America TV Show expose about teacher Sean Boushie.
ReplyDeleteLawless America has been given approval to film at various locations in Missoula. So, when Lawless America comes to town, cameras will be set up in off campus areas frequented by students.
Students are asked to check www.SeanBoushie.com each morning for the locations for that day.
Students are encouraged to come by and offer comments on cyberstalking in general and the work of University of Montana teacher, Sean Boushie, in particular.
Don't forget Tiny I need you to help me with my weekly target practice I'm getting good...Elizabeth
ReplyDelete