Search This Blog

Friday, October 9, 2015

Friday Fun Has The Back40 Crew Busy


We heard that you all were tired of scrolling, we apologize.  Unlike the Vexatious Filer and Criminal Defendant, Windsor, I and the Admin Crew are busy.  
I (we) will have a new blog post up soon, maybe.  
Everyone have an excellent weekend!  

~~~waving~~~

℗ ♛  

219 comments:

  1. While I finish my late lunch break, I'm wondering too, after it being mentioned earlier, what did happen to the #ACLU? Windsor claimed he'd been in contact with them. Crickets? They get slam dunked too?

    ReplyDelete
  2. And to amuse everyone while waiting for my email back from the ACLU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZhfJkBjxc

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They can confirm whether or not they're involved. I'm not asking what they're doing in the case. IF they're even involved in the case.

      Delete
    2. Didn't that all transpire over a weekend, too?
      Yup, just went and looked.
      The weekend ACLU staff was on call. They'll probably definitely be all over it this weekend & Monday, since that's a State & Federal holiday.

      And? Derrrrrr Sharon, there's nothing to tell. That weekend ACLU BillSchit is just like the reporter calling, the TV show calling...never happened.
      You should read the real Susan Harbison's (the woman you pose as) research on sleep and get you some. Then, you might not be so dimwitted. Bless your heart.

      Delete
    3. Exactly P
      I've been reading them today. Dr *the real* Susan Harbison is very interesting.
      Check her out Sharon, you're not doing anything anyway.

      Delete
    4. Poor Snusan doesn't know the first thing about the ACLU or else she would know that the ACLU announces the cases it is supporting and asks for public support. In fact yes, since the ACLU depends on charitable donations, it is mandated by law to disclose where that money goes, and they do this better than many other organizations.

      Delete
    5. I think they're wonderful and I am going to call them and ask if they will assist ALL of Windsor's defendants. But, I will wait until Tuesday, after the three day weekend. Don't want to bother the weekend ACLU staffers.

      Delete
  4. Perhaps Bill Windsor fell victim to a misunderstanding. In that case, Windsor would be so disappointed by Judge Haynes' decision he couldn't digest food properly and would spend hours on the throne slam dumping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think one of the cartoonists in these parts could make that cute.

      Delete
  5. The ACLU makes a concerted effort to do one thing above all others: be nice to everybody. They exist through donations and you never know who's a donor or a donor's wife or son or whatever. I don't know whether they could say if they're involved in a case or not. I do know they'd be nice about it either way, so there's no harm in asking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true, Anon 4:27. As a reporter, I've dealt with them a number of times -- great group to talk to. And they have confirmed involvement for me before in one case or another. However, it appears they may be gone for the weekend. We'll see who responds.

      Delete
    2. BILL WINDSOR RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE ACLU - FOLLOW-UP ON WHETHER THEY WILL TAKE HIS CASE.
      Unfortunately, it now has to be forwarded from South Dakota, so he won't know what it says for several days.
      It could be a "Hell yes we will take the case" or a "Sorry, we wish you the best of luck" or "Please send us this and this."
      Bill Windsor was just about to send them his Response Brief, but he'll wait until he sees what they have to say.
      Bill Windsor received a report today that the Joeys have been committing more wrongdoing by emailing the ACLU in an effort to interfere with William M. Windsor's prospective business relationship with the ACLU. Because virtually everything the Joeys say is a lie, they want to think that Bill Windsor lies. Well, they can stick the ACLU letter where the sun don't shine when Bill publishes it.

      Delete
    3. B.S. How would he know they sent him a letter? This isn't a state secret, if he spoke to the ACLU then they would tell him. How did he learn? From the mail service he subscribes to---and they can and will open letters for him if he asks them to. SO all of this drama about having to wait is really just to whip his lunar-tics into a tick biting frenzy. He could have found out if there was a letter, but all of this crap is absurd. He wants us to believe the ACLU is 1) dumb and 2) going to take his case without announcing it. They get so many calls that they have to open the phone lines weekly. He knows they did NOT take his case because he wouldn't have gotten past the first phone call; even if he had, those lawyers would have googled his name and found ALL the BillSchit droppings. He and Snusie are just hoping that when you contact the ACLU for him, that his case will get a new chance. Not gonna happen. :)

      Delete
    4. The only reason why the non-lawyer person on the phone might have claimed they would hand his case off to a lawyer is IF Bill lied to them, and we all know he lies, in order to make it sound like he had a case. But the ACLU gets thousands of requests and a great many will be fake. Considering the talented minds here and on Fogbow--do you really think our nation's most talents and influential lawyers would touch him except to propose laws against his abuse of the legal system?

      https://www.facebook.com/aclu.nationwide?fref=ts
      https://www.aclu.org/

      It is NOT a secret which cases the ACLU is following and wants you to follow and which they are taking action on. As you can see in the links above, this is just one more delusional and manic lie in Bill's vain attempt to escape justice.

      Delete
    5. And guys...if they were going to take the time to send him a "YES" they most certainly would have called him and announced their support to the public. I get mail from the ACLU all the time as a card carrying member. They talk about the cases they are following and LEGALLY ask for donations.

      Delete
    6. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 9, 2015 at 5:23 PM

      WTFingF?

      "Bill Windsor received a report today that the Joeys have been committing more wrongdoing by emailing the ACLU in an effort to interfere with William M. Windsor's prospective business relationship with the ACLU. Because virtually everything the Joeys say is a lie, they want to think that Bill Windsor lies. Well, they can stick the ACLU letter where the sun don't shine when Bill publishes it."
      "

      Who said anyone was calling the ACLU about this loser? They're smart enough to see through the billshit. I guess Sharon's nose didn't have enough billshit on it today, so she had to go cram it back up there so he'd have something new to post. How pathetic.

      Delete
    7. Fairly certain the ACLU people have email or at least a fax machine...

      Delete
    8. Isn't their logo a registered trademark?

      Delete
    9. Giggle snicker snorting!!!!

      Everyone ~~~wave~~~ at Windsor! He's sooooooo busy, blah blah blah...yet, TaDa! Windsor Facebooks exactly what has been commented about his ACLU claims, that were also made on a Friday.

      I hope Bill reads all these comments to Bill real slow, so Bill can make certain Bill understood. How many fricking Bills are in that Windsor wad that one has to read to the others? Make me wonder if when Windsir goes to a restaurant he says "Bill will have _______, with a salad" and waiter/waitress is wondering if Bill is in the restroom, hasn't arrived yet, went back to the car? And what's this jayoo going to order?

      Yo! Bill? You're a doofus! Tell Bill he is, too & any other Bills wadded up in there. smdh Simply cannot script funnier shizz anywhere!

      ℗ ♛

      Delete
    10. Talking to the ACLU is a crime? This man is off his nuts.

      You know what is hysterical? Bill has been denouncing lawyers for years. Snuzan thinks she is smarter than ALL lawyers. And now the two of them are begging a group of lawyers to defend him--for free!

      He can't hide the evidence from him no matter what lies Snoozan's frog legs and bat toes cooked up. All they had to do is that that charges were being brought against him. The ACLU is NOT going to launch a national campaign against Montana and J.C. without researching. They would have called the court, J.C. and the police to find out the nature of these crimes and maybe even to challenge them quietly first.

      ACLU: Is it true you are pressing charges? What is the nature of your evidence?
      J.C.: Yes it is true. While I can not comment on the pending case, I can tell you that Windsor is a multi-state VL with a history of anti-government activity, a history of stalking people coast to coast. I can not show you the evidence or the case we will present against him, but I can tell you the nature of the evidence includes harassing judges, lawyers, cops and private citizens on many multi-media platforms. However, I can point you to the many websites made by members of the public that have gathered the bulk of his activities, and that they have published evidence, some admissible and some in-admissible in a court of law.

      Someone pass me a beer and some popcorn.

      Delete
    11. DID, complicated by WKS...

      Delete
    12. Now he has a "business relationship" with the ACLU? Uh-oh...what's that smell? Is it...could it be....attempted bribery or just another lie?

      Delete
    13. Bwahahahahahaha!!!
      It's Coronas & spicy hot wings here, outta popcorn.

      Delete
    14. "Business relationship" ie; "get me out of this, with prejudice to Clark, and I'll put you in the movie credits"...

      Delete
    15. I suppose now is as good as any time to mention Taylor Swift...

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    17. The white trash of the red light district speaks. If only she took care of herself better, she could still be making all that cash on a Friday night selling her body for money. Oh well. Ignore her rant. She's just repeating what her family has told her repeatedly.

      Delete
    18. Can't you just picture her father saying those same words to her?

      Delete
    19. Integrity from a female that uses an accomplished professionals name.
      Bwahahahahahaha!

      ~KellieMcDougald~

      Delete
    20. ""Snuzan thinks she is smarter than ALL lawyers."

      There is absolutely no basis for that statement.


      LMAO at that one. Yeah, there is plenty of basis for that statement. Snoozie's delusions of grandeur are painfully obvious in every post. How many hundreds of people have witnessed her exhibitions of superior thinking? If she hasn't explicitly said she's smarter than all attorneys, it has certainly been implied. Over and over again.

      Windsor and his supporters all have a common coping skill: when the baffle 'em with BS method fails - shoot the messenger with accusations of lying and corruption.

      Delete
    21. Hahahahahahahahahaha! Integrity? Hahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    22. We are baffled by the bs that Susan the slut insinuated she has any integrity. rotfl

      Delete
    23. OMG!! Here we're talking about what joke the ACLU "representing" or even "considering" representing Windfart, and Sharon gets all huffy, tattles to Winey boy, and up goes an article puffing more puffery.

      BUT, when the Lemmings tell him fat chance? They won't take the case? He's all "yeah, I'm not holding my breath...." then he has to throw in the lie that his constitutional rights are being violated blah fricken blah, and how "HIS" case will help others in MT. No it won't. Not unless they are all being charged with stalking protection order violations. Apples and Oranges for the Windsor monkey salad tonight. Just toss it all in there cause that's how Windsor rolls. Unless say, the ACLU took on a case supporting the defendants and their rights to free speech, then he'd be all up in arms. One way Windsor right there.

      Delete
    24. Hahahahahaha!!! The ticks ran to get a can of bs OFF! Hahahaha!

      It certainly is funny Friday. Hilarious!

      Delete
  6. Bonnie Roy: "Convict the guilty we shouldn't have to defend our innocence!"

    Ummm.... that can be taken in an odd way, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. HAHAHAHA -

    Aliana von Richthofen - wouldn't hold my breath - sorry

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Bill's charges are going to be dismissed, why's he need the ACLU?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Blah blah blah bullshit. ^^^^^ Keep trying though.

      Delete
    3. Well Ms Warty Toes, Bill has already said that he thinks the ACLU won't take his case and that it would be a business arrangement if they did. The ACLU protects The Bill of Rights, so that pretty much narrows down the stench of desperation.

      Delete
  9. Yay! Spamanon's candle trick worked. Vic, the peacemaker, is back:

    Vic Fedorov Even if the aclu is more prestige than action and work its good to bounce off channels and forms. But the problem is the same; an insulated government doesnt get real. Ive been treating it from the perspective it is mechanical. If people government do respect me I plan to be kind and show them a better way and a system to marshall, not to condemn but construct out of.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, why would Windsor need the ACLU? He's slam dunked briefed out, according to him.
    That ACLU stuff was at least one week ago Friday, though. BillSchit moves fast on Fridays.,

    ReplyDelete
  11. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 9, 2015 at 8:32 PM

    Ok, two problems I see here. Did they "Call" him or "Send a letter?"
    I say, because he can't keep his stories straight, he's lying.

    Then he claims it's the South Dakota ACLU? Why? He's claiming it is to help out MT in general. Windsor hasn't lived in South Dakota and nothing has happened in South Dakota for the ACLU to even get involved. So, why didn't he just contact the Montana ACLU? This makes the above lie seem that much more a lie.

    "BILL WINDSOR RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE ACLU - FOLLOW-UP ON WHETHER THEY WILL TAKE HIS CASE."

    "Bill Windsor-- I'm not holding my breath on this. BUT, they did call me, and they did request that I send specific information. I emphasized that the Montana Supreme Court is allowing judges in Montana to take away Constitutional rights, so my case affects everyone in Montana."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Windsor has said everyone in Montana is stupid and ugly, the woman have beards, he said. Why does he care about anyone in Montana?
      Massive BillSchit.
      Add the ACLU calling and emailing Windsor to the growing list along with the TV show contacting him, the filmmaker contacting him to film his trial, the phone call with reporter shaking her head visibly through the phone.
      Bill needs a full time staff to keep up with all the BillSchit.

      Delete
    2. So he didn't receive the letter yet, but they called to tell him the emails sent today were bad---but forgot to mention if they support him. And yet if us talking to them was really bad then that would mean Windsor is implying that they are supporting him, which we know they are not.

      Delete
    3. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 9, 2015 at 9:03 PM

      And what address did they send that "letter" to? He's got PO Boxes all over the place that he uses to play mail stall games and they have to forward his crap to him, so just how did that work? If it takes several weeks or more to get court documents? He knows how to say "Email" but he didn't. He said "Letter"

      Yeah, I think the part when he said he was contacted by a TV company who was applying for or filing a motion for permission to film his trial turned out to actually be himself? He isn't credible with any claims of anyone being remotely interested in him, his lies, or his anti government agenda.

      And he says the "haters" lie? No, he just doesn't like it when his lies in his own words are thrown back at his big, fat, fugly face.

      Delete
    4. The ACLU actually did help me many years ago with a case involving discrimination and a condo I was leasing.
      Now, that was years ago but, After I contacted my Michigan chapter and spoke with a rep who took my info and had a attorney call me the next day ( who also took all my information) this was before email/texting/ personal computers etc ... within a week they had referred a wonderful female women's rights attorney to me ...who they retained& pd all court/lawyer fees and sent two attorneys to court the day of my case and I WON. My point is that within a day I knew if they were going to take my case, so I call BS especially in this age of computers, email video chat, cell phone chat etc ... that Windbag is waiting on a snailmail letter sent to his SD address after 2 weeks. He already knows the letter ( if there is a letter) politely declines to become involved in his bogus Bullshit case. IMHO

      Delete
  12. Winkopppoop, Cocks & Snusie you're dumb

    FYI This is not a freedom of speech issue, well not for you, but the ACLU might be interested to get some issues down pat.

    The same whining you do about freedom of speech applies to us all FYI
    SO do please explain all your little black heart desires to any alphabet acronym'd government agency, non profit etc why you think your right to stalk and harass people online AND in person is being violated.

    Do not leave anything that you may think important, you hear?

    You stalked and harassed too many people. A jury is not going to buy your story. Nobody has cept the nobodies.

    In the REAL world, not the Matrix where you and your minions reside, we have seen what you've done, you've been exposed, you're being charged with a crime, now own your BILLSHIT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah the only other unlikely scenario is they might have thought they'd pitch the fake movie idea on the ACLU to get sponsorship, walk into the court saying that they ACLU supported the idea, and then force the ACLU's lawyers to defend him after the fact. Again, not gonna happen, cause they'd research Windsor's activities first.

      Delete
    2. He's made so many claims over the years that haven't panned out, I'm not surprised there are so few comments. He builds them up, they get all excited, and then BAM. Nothing. How many times did he say he was talking to some "Producer" or "TV production company" or whatever, then had some lame excuse as to why it didn't pan out? Or that he didn't feel comfortable so he "pulled the plug?" But the one thing I noticed is that he never showed any kind of communications. Ever. Just Bill blowing hot air on FB and that's it. SMH.

      Delete
    3. And every time the lemmings are all, "YOUR A GENIUS!" (always your, never you're) and "CONGRATULATIONS BILL I KNEW THINGS WOULD START TO GO YOUR WAY," to which Bill replies, "Aw shucks," and Mary launches into a paragraph about something totally irrelevant, putting the thread out of its misery.

      Delete
    4. You're welcome.

      Signed,
      United thread stoppers

      Delete
  13. Ok, you guys ready to learn what SVG really had in mind for Bill in contacting the ACLU? This is on her occupy website:

    Ok, ya'll ready to hear what SVG is probably trying to pull? This is on her website:

    http://www.occupythelaw.com/PDFs/access%20to%20the%20court%20ACLU%20amicus%20brief.pdf

    She has claimed that after losing her own frivolous cases, she was denied access to the courts, so she found a case where the ACLU argues that American citizens have the right to access the courts. Apparently the SovCit and VL agenda is to say the ACLU would support them no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason Bill will be stopped will not be because he stalked any one individual, but because it is undeniable that he is using private citizens to wage a full scale assault on the courts. Forget about protecting us, once the Justice System protects itself from this domestic terrorist the citizens will be protected too.

      Delete
    2. I agree completely @ 8:02 Looking back on his DC plans, he claimed he would launch filings against all the Corrupt people. But, it's my opinion that he chickened out when the FBI contacted him, so he revamped his plans of attack. He used the "haters" as an excuse to get in the door. Just look at all the frivolous arguments he uses and the amount of crap he flings at the courts. Then, he claims they are corrupt, denying his rights, blah, blah, blah, when he didn't have a case to begin with. It's the same agenda. Repetitive suits in numerous states? Gathering names of "Corrupt Govt. Officials" along the way--who he claims are paying the haters. How convenient for his original agenda.

      In a spiffy twist, they want to drag the ACLU into the mix? Does the ACLU support frivolous filings that the sole goal is to play endless court games? Working all the way up to the SCOTUS? Forget about him still trying to reach millions for that whole Treason=Death thing. "They" collectively as one under the leader William M Windsor will benefit as he claimed yesterday. If he can find anyone to represent his domestic terrorist plot--it will benefit all the others just like him. That was his goal, that appears it's still his goal.

      How long will he be able to continue this game? That is the question.

      Delete
    3. But this case was all about challenging "rex non potest peccare", government transparency and covert actions. The brief does not defend abuse of the judicial system. If the likes of Snoozie and Windsor were denied their constitutional right to access courts, we wouldn't have the term "vexatious litigant".

      Delete
    4. LOL! Since when do "they" use cases to cite as the true intent? They twist everything, omit portions, reinvent definitions of terms, etc.

      Sharon acknowledged that Windsor used a bait and switch pretend "we'll help you, if you help us" con to gain supporters. Why would they stick to the truth now? She slithered back under the main serpent to help him continue on with the main goals. Simply finding ways to stay in the game.

      Delete
    5. Good point, Ninja. I forgot to consider the source.

      Delete
    6. I couldn't find a statement by the ACLU on VL's. But I found this:


      "The court correctly held the statute constitutional. It is not unreasonable to differentiate actions which on their face have no reasonable probability of success from those which do not. Such classification is designed both to protect parties who must respond to such actions from undue harassment by assuring them recompense for reasonable expenses,and to protect the courts from abuses of their process by discouraging litigation which has no reasonable probability of success.... The vexatious litigant who attempts
      to relitigate actions or issues already determined against him should have no ground for complaint. His claim is already barred by other established principles of law, and his rights are in no way modified by the statute. It is not unreasonable, furthermore, to classify separately from other litigants those litigants with a prior history of litigiousness when they bring an action with no reasonable probability to prevail. Such a litigant is more likely to abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants....Moreover, a Los Angeles County study affords a reasonable basis for the belief that litigants appearing in propria persona are indeed more likely to burden the courts and adverse parties with meritless litigation....The statute, while purporting to compensate
      vexed defendants, will offer no compensation to the majority of those
      defendants for their expenses even where security is required, since the plaintiff who fails to post security can simply bring another action on the same claim;"9 the plaintiff loses nothing by his failure to post security. Finally, actions subject to this statute can be reached by existing procedures. Therefore, the "Vexatious Litigant Statute" is ill-advised, and interested parties should seek further means to solve the problem of the vexatious litigant...."

      So the defense is that Windsor is not a VL and is being denied access to the courts. However, they just made it relevant, if it was not before, to state that Bill's own past bad actions, and the character of VL's in general, and all the statements of legal professionals prove that his rights are not being violated, but that they VL statute does not even begin to go far enough to protect the courts and citizens from abuse.

      Delete
    7. Oh sorry, here's the link:
      http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2910&context=californialawreview

      Delete
    8. Right. The VL statues do not go far enough and perhaps the recognition Windsor's been seeking for "Landmark" status is his name on a newly revamped Statute barring the continued abuses that VL's like him employ to legally "Stalk" victims through the courts.

      If they claim the VL statute is "Unconstitutional" therefore "Void" and can simply continue on harassing people, and abusing the court system, even when required to post a bond (that they never do because they claim it's unconstitutional) the need to make stricter laws.

      Windsor's cases--even through all his claims of massive evidence--have never been proven. What he uses as "evidence" isn't. That is the excuse to get in and stay in. It is my belief Windsor has exposed the major flaws in the Judicial system which afford far too much leiniency to frivolous lawsuits that are only designed to stalk, harass, intimidate, annoy, and bog down the system. His hatred of the Judicial system and the government drives his need to continue his attacks. Innocent people get dragged in, and the courts simply allow him to continue on with these relentless and meritless attacks--not realizing his sole goal is being accomplished with every delay, stall, and frivolous argument. This feeds him. He lives and breathes being a vindictive prick because IMO this is his "War" on them. He's "teaching" them. The longer he stays in, the more he feels he wins. Doesn't matter if he ever accomplishes anything, making them pay for telling him no is still a win for him.

      Judge Thrash had the right idea, it just wasn't enough. It left far too many loopholes of which he's highlighted for the past several years. YEARS. Doesn't this say anything to those who's duty it is, to protect the integrity of the Judicial System, the Government and the taxpaying citizens?

      Delete
    9. That article I shared was from 1966. Do any of our legit legal correspondents have anything to share about the current or future tightening of these laws nationwide? Or could you plant the bug for a student to write that article for a thesis or something?

      Delete
    10. And apparently, it is not a crime to engage in VL? So right now they just get called a bad name, they get their name put on a restriction list, they have to pay penalties, and the courts are unable to enforce this----and these people are not even considered criminals by the courts for abusing the courts??? Riddle me this. Please and thanks.

      Delete
    11. Well in practice it becomes more and more difficult for the vexi to extend his or her attacks. Those to whom Windsor owes money from his Texas fiasco may indeed find it tough to collect that money (though if some is owed to lawyers I wouldn't bet against Windsor having to pay at some point). But Windsor bringing new actions against those same people? Nothing's impossible but that very nearly is. There is a limit to society tolerating such things. Windsor's exceeded it. The chances he will ever again be granted the power to put us in court are miniscule. Certainly not worth worrying about. How long will half a dozen lemmings believe he still has that power when he isn't making anything happen? With nothing reigning supreme except his ever-more ridiculous plans? Not long. And it's five or six mentally challenged welfare recipients. Who cares?

      Delete
    12. Doesn't Windsor have charges pending in TX for bail jumping? Seems he'd have to deal with that issue before showing up in a TX civil court. Then, there is a little problem with the statute of limitations, in TX it's one year for defamation. The activity that provided him with a claim appears to have stopped. And he's had no "business" to interrupt in the last year. The TX appeals aren't going anywhere. As I understand it, Windsor was suing people based on "information and belief" provided by 3rd or 4th parties and several people were dismissed from the case before the case in whole was dismissed.

      The phrase "pissing in the wind" comes to mind when I think of Windsor's threats to continue hunting down his detractors.

      Delete
  14. OMG. Check out this vexi lemming. He tried to sue the state for $4,246,000,000,000.00 in damages He was arrested for threatening a public official. #WelcomeToEnlightment-not

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAydJc-5A5Y

    https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2176584/wemple-v-all-illinois-judicial-circuits/

    http://madisonrecord.com/stories/510556930-author-of-human-authority-seeks-250-billion-from-isba-over-alleged-ip-damage

    http://www.taylorvilledailynews.com/blotter/details.cfm?clientid=21&id=132582#.VhkUEito3X4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he's an engineer, I'm a ballerina. No way.

      Delete
    2. I looked the term up in "Windsor's Wacked-Out Word Dictionary" (available on Amazon): Ballerina-- n. Any person on tip-toes in a tu-tu.

      Delete
  15. Speaking of Billschit letters - whatever happened to that letter that Windsor supposedly received from Joey Dauben a couple of weeks ago? You know the letter that he was going to post when he got around to it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Windsor published it and it was apparent that Windsor contacted Dauben first, not Joey, just out of the clear blue wrote to Windsor.
      Windsor did NOT publish his originating correspondence to Joey, though.
      Joey's letter gave Windsor some advice about how Joey saw now, that he'd done things so wrong. Windsor will never heed Joey's hard lesson learned advice, though.
      Joey recieves correspondence from others, he knows exactly what Windsor is.

      Delete
  16. On the preceding page, I said Windsor's case going to trial is the status quo. I said I didn't think the judge had to announce anything if it didn't change the status quo. I'm not saying he won't. I just don't think he has to. I also said I thought time was against Windsor. That is, the longer he waits for something from the judge, the less likely there'll be a dismissal. Snoozan, of course, said the opposite. And I mean exactly the opposite on all points. As usual, she didn't supply any rational argument besides everyone here being stupid. I still think I'm right and I think Windsor is starting to agree with me. I don't think he's at all confident of a dismissal now, if he ever was. I'm past caring what Snoozan thinks. Not conversing with her again. I'll wait for the results. I can wait a long time. Bill? He can't. He's going to commence to flipping out if the case against him isn't dismissed pretty soon. Time isn't on his side in this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Anon 12:48 and, I also can wait, patiently. Reading of all Windsor's worming and conniving? Seems similar to a weekly TV sitcom, it can easily be recorded while mine & others' lives go on and caught up with at our leisure.
      As the days, nights, weeks & months slip by? It has become more than obvious how truly miserable Winsdsor is in his self created existence. Windsor mindfucking himself and then chronicling it on his Facebook and .coms is for recreational enjoyment. Yes, I do enjoy reading what Windsor had unsuccessfully attempted, for years, to inflict on so many others has now become his 'reward', his reality.

      #SandThroughAnHourglass
      #DustInTheWind

      Delete
    2. The next court date for this case is the trial date, right? There aren't any more hearings scheduled? Unless the judge calls the DA and Windsor back into court before the trial date, dismissal doesn't appear likely. As long as the DA wants to prosecute, the judge isn't going to call up Windsor or send a letter dropping the charges. Any confusion about whether the PO was or is still in affect was caused by Windsor. I don't believe he will be allowed to benefit from his stall tactics and vexi behavior.

      And mindf*cking himself is so right. If he has to sit in one place with the monitor until January, it is ALL his fault.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Blah blah blah. A washed up whore legal expert. LMAO SMH.

      Delete
    5. Who's the "indiot" now?

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Maybe Windsor will call Sharon as an expert witness during trial. She can testify about the importance of getting your money upfront when turning tricks.

      Delete
    8. Sharon, Windsor was appealing several courts--giving them all jurisdiction to extend the TOP. Had Windsor not played the appeal game and went to his first hearing, he might not be in this mess. (lol, yeah, he would but you two can dream)

      You're limited knowledge of law is why you were following and supporting GRIP/Lawless Losers of America etc. SMH.

      Delete
    9. Susan, susan, susan. What kind of legal license do you hold that you can correct someone and tell them what you think that the truth is pertaining to court procedures and more? Can you answer that question? Are you an attorney or judge? If not Explaining process and legal jargon is not your field of expertise.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    11. Nope You're team Vexi Sharon. Figure it out loser

      Delete
    12. Susan don't you think that Windsor had plenty of due process arguing the TOP with the higher court the MSC? Why did he need a hearing for the district court when he already accepted the ruling from them, waived the hearing by filing the appeal within days. You can't have a hearing and an appeal.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. Susan, Windsor accomplice, your not an attorney. You have no right to give legal advice and your not an expert. Your out of line you mere pro-se wanna be legal eagle. Until you show proof of you being an attorney I will rag you here and continue on that your not an expert and really have no experience or formal education of working as an attorney.

      Delete
    15. In law, a dispositive motion is a motion seeking a trial court order entirely disposing of all or part of the claims in favor of the moving party without need for further trial court proceedings. "To dispose" of a claim means to decide the claim in favor of one or another party

      What makes you think A) that Windsor won, and B) he even filed that when appealing?

      Seriously Sharon, you're reaching. It's funny that you believe Windsor now, when you knew long ago, he was a liar.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    17. Windsor's brief explains his perception of the TOP process. Everyone knows Windsor and you Sharon, couldn't file a winning motion in a toilet bowl. It will always get flushed.

      Delete
    18. Sharon obviously played a large part I the "crafting" of that brief. That's why she is defending it so hard. Unfortunately, she has the same court record as Windsor. 0 for forever. Their next brief is always going to be a winner. Hasn't happened yet. But even a faceblind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Or in Sharon's case, they get paid to take it.

      Delete
    19. If your basing that the TOP is invalid because there was no hearing that is not a valid defense. Windsor waived having the hearing and started an appeal. If you want to talk about following processes why did bill not wait until the hearing was over? He could had still filed the appeal after the hearing. The issue bill has is that he files premature appeals all he time disrupting the court process and time frames.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    21. Susan "knows" the law even though she is not an attorney. Snicker, giggle. Your making me laugh at your claims Susan.

      Delete
    22. It boggles the mind doesn't it? Here we have Snusan so content in her abilities to understand the law. Calling everyone a coward. Hell, she is the biggest coward here, and I don't even know most of you. If she is not a coward then why isn't she out there practicing law? Why, since she's so obviously a hot shot legal mind, out there in the public spotlight giving analysis to Fox News or teaching at a major Law University? Why isn't she a public figure? Because she doesn't have the guts to put herself and her undeniable legal prowess to the test. Deep inside she know she is a fraud, always was and always will be.

      Delete
    23. Snoozie: Typing the wrong word does not indicate ignorance, "indiot". Clearly, you understood the intent of the comment, so calling me names was just flat meanness. At most, there is indication that I did not proof read before hitting the publish button.

      We ALL understand the briefs, both of them. It seems you have not read ALL of the appeals and rulings in this case. If you have read them all, how can you not see that it is because of Windsor that this case has dragged on for more than 2 years and will continue for at least another 3 months?

      As for dismissing the charges; I seriously doubt the judge will disrespect the DA's office with a dismissal without a hearing.

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    25. Susan, not an attorney, you would agree then that his premature appeal was meritless based on the fact that there was no final decision by the district court and a hearing was to happen yet. The MSC should have dismissed and not hear his appeal then.agree?

      Delete
    26. Sharon, again by not reading ALL of Windsor's appeals you're missing a key points.

      Lets go back to how Windsor is obsessed with filing and arguing. Every appellate court he filed in EXTENEDED the TOP. You can't file an appeal, to get out of a hearing, then say that they had to have the hearing, when the appeal was to get out of the hearing. Then we have Windsor who's famous for filing motions claiming there can't be hearings because he's appealing. Let's not forget his motions claiming he had to leave town. SMH you'll never get it.

      Delete
    27. Cowed Coward Snusan can't even read and respond to all the the posts on this thread. Hey Susan, why are you wasting your "talents" day and night on this blog? Why are you afraid to go public? So how could we possibly expect her to read and be honest about reams of legal documents??

      Delete
    28. Hey Sharon not an attorney, I am sure you would know since you know the "law" That the judge does not dismiss charges the prosecutor will withdrawal them. The jury would find him not guilty or guilty.

      Furthermore, you wrote, one does not waive a hearing by filing an appea. The facts are he filed the appeal before the hearing took place putting the hearing on hold. The MSC should have dismissed the appeal because there was no final order for the TOP. Instead they heard the arguments for and against the TOP. Hence becoming Windsors hearing. He had due process.

      Delete
    29. Windsor also filed a motion to modify the TOP. Why modify something that isn't valid? That hasn't had a hearing, or that you're appealing? Windsor's clusterfuck of motions, filings, and appeals contradict everything you're saying Sharon.

      Delete
    30. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    31. How much will you donate to charity when she does appear? Let's have a fund raiser right here and now. I bet $50 towards the local animal shelter that Clark appears and Susan stays home. Who's with me?

      Delete
    32. Sharon, not an attorney your entire thought process is off. It is not the judges place to determine if a case has merit at all. It is the job of the prosecutor to make a determination if they hunk they will win the case and wether or not to continue on.
      The court has never said that the TOP expired where is that document?


      Delete
    33. Sharon is just like Windsor. This "Criminal" stuff is WAY out of their league. She's arguing civil procedures--and she's wrong on that too.

      The fact that the Judge asked for the Brief, was so Windsor can't bring it up in trial. They're SO vexatious they couldn't see that SLAMDUNK. That argument is no longer at issue.

      I agree Anon @ 10:31. Sharon won't be there.

      Delete
    34. Someone could bake cookies for their office or babysit for free or leave an anonymous card. But I have $50 says Sharon won't stand up in court to defend Bill. I'll send you a pic come January.

      Delete
    35. SMH. I'm going to go argue with one of my fence posts. They are all more reasonable than Snoozie. And not nearly as insulting.

      Delete
    36. Say what you want about Jennifer Clark, but she worked to get where she is today. There's something to be said about empowered women with education and business sense, and enough balls to put their own name on the legal documents they argue.

      Delete
  17. Proof that this whole Lawless America crap is really "The" William M Windsor show, just look at how he's now advertising.

    "To Learn Of Bill Windsor's Legal Saga, read the summary here..."

    No. There is no "Legal Saga" the way he would like to promote it, the facts are strong. Windsor has launched his own "Legal Saga," filed frivolous civil suits he could never prosecute, purposely violated a TOP that he knew was still valid--due to the plethora of appeals to get the courts to drop it--which only extended it (here's a thought, why was he appealing it, if it was expired? Yeah....) and ALL the games HE plays to make the courts "Pay" for ruling against him. No--there is only a "legal saga" for the sole purpose of claiming "Corruption" so the lemmings keep watching. waiting, endlessly waiting for him to finally help them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Susan, why do you think billy has any right to argue the validity of the TOP and its contents when he already argued the TOP with the MSC. The MSC upheld the TOP and all of the stipulations contained within it.

      Delete
    3. Sharon you're an idiot. Windsor clearly hasn't shown you ALL his appeals and motions. He screwed himself.

      Delete
    4. The delusion is real. He no longer advertises LA as being about thousands of people, but entirely about himself. Hey Sharon, since you'll defend Windsor to the grave (yours and his), tell us how long it would take you to produce a movie about judicial corruption. I'm just wondering if you have the guts to talk about what you would do differently or if you will be as chicken as you always are to answer a direct question honestly.

      Delete
    5. Susan HarbisonOctober 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM

      coward 9:20: you are an idiot. a person appeals the fact that a top ever existed to clear the record.


      Good gosh almighty! She's starting to sound like a broken record too. Like calling everyone an idiot is going to change the facts.

      Here is what Windsor can not change, no matter how many of us are really idiots or how much Snoozie and Windsor holler that the TOP is/was void: Windsor drove to Montana with the overly expressed intention of stalking and harassing Boushie at home and on his job. Windsor recorded the entire stalking adventure and posted the video in several places on the internet. Boushie complained and was awarded the TOP to stop the harassment. Due process for the respondent was to attend the hearing on 9/9/13, set by statute, to challenge the order, which Windsor waived when he filed the first appeal.

      The TOP did exist and resulted in at least one desired effect. Windsor quit physically stalking Boushie. And as has been pointed out before, the government can and will seize a web site used in commission of a felony. Windsor knows this and prepared for losing. The site was empty last time I looked. All of the data had been moved to another site.

      Delete
    6. Sharon said "coward 9:20: you are an idiot. a person appeals the fact that a top ever existed to clear the record."

      Problem is, Windsor wasn't appealing the validity of it. He was arguing to drop it. He was arguing the fact that HIS should have been granted. He was arguing everything under the sun he could think of to get it dropped. That indicated his understanding that it DID exist, and it WAS re affirmed AND extended by each court he appealed to. Little nuances Sharon that you refuse to acknowledge. Since his arrest? Those new arguments are "VOID"

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. Sharon has to go. There might be a ghost that needs to be painted.

      Delete
    11. Sharon not an attorney, the fact is Windsors appeal should had been refused from the MSC and the hearing should have happened. But he was heard by the MSC and they decided he validity of the TOP. Those are the facts.

      Delete
    12. They (Sharon and Windsor) want to blame the courts for Windsor's actions and in this case inactions. If Windsor wanted a hearing to vacate the TOP, he should have requested one. The fact that the TOP was reaffirmed and extended do not invalidate the validity. The "hearing" they keep whining about? It was Windsor's ball and he dropped it. Had he not have been happy to play endless Appeal a TOP, he could have requested a hearing of which all the orders explained it would remain in full force unless or until Modified. Windsor didn't request a hearing to modify, he just wanted to play in the appellate courts.

      You Snooze you lose....

      Delete
    13. The hoe's name is Sharon, not Susan. She poses as Susan Harbison, uses another's name.

      Delete
    14. Don't bother replying Sharon. You need to go back an re read Clarks brief. You and your Vexi counter part are still trying to stuff this square peg into the round hole. The HUGE hole in his defense. Your citing of statues are WRONG for THIS INSTANCE.

      The statue is clear that Clark used, not the statutes you want to twist this case to fit under. IT'S. NOT. VALID. If either one of you two idiots would learn how to read, she schooled your asses. Plain and simple.

      #3 as in 3 strikes he's OUT. Trial to commence.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. YOU SAY YOU HAVE NOT BEEN HERE FOR VERY LONG.

      I don't believe I said any such thing.

      SHOW ME SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT SAYS HE EVER DID OR EVEN COULD WAIVE THAT HEARING.

      Windsor is complaining that he didn't get a hearing within 20 days but it was all his fault there wasn't a hearing within 20 days.

      The rest of what you said is more of the baffle 'em with BS stuff. I agree with whoever it was that suggested you should just STFU.

      Delete
    17. UH OH!! SHE'S CAP LOCKING!! MUST MEAN SHE'S PISSED THAT THE ORDER DOWN BELOW CLEARLY LAYS OUT ALL THE SHIT SHE ASKED FOR PROOF OF. IF YOU READ IT SHARON LIKE YOU CLAIM--THOSE ANSWERS ARE THERE AND IN JC'S BRIEF. MORON!! MAYBE MAGNUS CAN SPLAIN TO YOU.

      FACEBLIND MUCH? SEEMS TO BE JUST PLAIN BLIND.

      (AND AS FOR WINDSOR AND THE WEBSITE? AGAIN BELIGERANCE TO PROVE THAT HE WILL NEVER FOLLOW A DIRECT COURT ORDER. THANKS FOR VERIFYING HE STILL IS IN CONTROL OF IT)

      Delete
  18. Re: "Law & Disorder", I think he went to the Mary Deneen school of insanely redundant Facebook posting...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Instead of Beatlejuice, it's Lymejuice. Damn you spam...now she's gonna start by and thru'ing again.

      Delete
    2. Mary bought some cocopuffs. She bought them for a dime. Windsor had another con she trade it for the lyme. She put the lyme in the cocopuffs and shook it all up.
      She put the lyme in the cocopuffs
      She called the doctor, woke him up, and said,
      "(Insert tick-bite frenzy here)"

      Delete
    3. Doctor! Is there nothing I can take? Put the lyme in the cocopuffs, you drink 'em both down...

      Now I have that song in my head.

      Delete
    4. Can you all hear us singing?
      We love this!

      Delete
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LxC3M-Yngs
      Lets ALL dance!!

      Delete
    6. Here's another one, incase we go back to banana's after the lymes in the cocopuffs.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMTNT_BzkdA

      Delete
    7. I'm October 11th at 12:48 (though I wish I was the tick -- that's genius and very funny)

      The reason I won't discuss this with Sharon is that even if I'm totally right, the judge won't dismiss, she will still maintain she's right and I'm stupid. She and Windsor didn't come this far to allow facts to get in their way. I've said everything I needed to say. If the case isn't dismissed, I was right - I win. If it is dismissed I was wrong and I lose. Simple. Not going to play by Sharon's rules where she's right no matter what. She doesn't get to make rules and neither does Windsor.

      Delete
    8. You're so right @1:35pm, everyone knows, just Windsor and his ticked off wanna be legal eagle won't admit it.
      Several have said that Sharon sloot wrote Bill's brief, and we agree! She defends it, quotes from it, probably has a copy in her bunk (crypt?).

      We're all dancing! Line dancing at that! Not Lyme, line.

      Delete
    9. HAHAHA Line dancing!! No wonder MaryD's spinning out over there Lyme dancing by herself. Awwww!!

      Yeah, Sharon's taking this way to personal. She thinks she found the magic Wonka ticket, but she simply got bit by one of Munchie's ticks. (Tick not ticket. Ticks mess with your brain, just ask Munchie) I think she wanted to see if anyone else, other than she and Whiney Windsor bought that brief argument. Nope. She can call us idiots, and claim she didn't say what she said when she loses, but we all know the point of Vexi's is to bury the truth underneath all that Tacky, tickey, icky.

      Delete
  19. Bill likes to play cowboy over on Facebook. He doesn't have a story, it's a "saga." He doesn't have foes, they're "The Notorious Joeyisalittlekid Gang." (you halfway expect to find them in Johnson County, Wyoming, where Hole In The Wall is)

    I cowboyed for a living for thankfully short times in my life. It stinks. It's dangerous. It's boring. It pays way way way below minimum wage. And Windsor wouldn't last an hour. You'd find him crying and running away from his horse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn right, Skippy. I bet he wouldn't last 30 minutes. Cowboy work is a lot more physical than it looks, always too hot or too cold, dusty, windy, too wet or too dry. Not to mention all the poop and the flies. He's so full of himself, his horse would probably dump him and run away.

      Delete
    2. I was in a beat up Subaru probably 10 times as much as I was on a horse. Want to work yourself to death? Want no benefits and low, inconsistent pay? How about freezing near to death? How about a shower every 4th day when June up at the truck stop let's you sneak in at 1AM? Wash your clothes? Why? Yup, Windsor. Real cowboying and you aren't a good fit. Keep on with your dude ranch stuff. Then your neck scarf won't hang you dead because you tied the wrong knot and it caught a tree branch.

      Delete
    3. Since all he does is p*ss and moan, Windsor would make a great "catheter cowboy" on TV.

      Delete
    4. Cowboys know to cut off the head of the snake. Let him name the government organization or person who supposedly hired or solicited us all to go after him. S.B. isn't even liked by many members of this blog and he isn't a government authority. The University of Montana is not a government entity. Who is the head of the snake responsible for "cyberstalking" Windsor? He's no cowboy. He's a pansy-arsed cry baby.

      Delete
    5. The image of Windsor driving a Subaru to check on a herd of cattle is stuck in my head. He has trouble driving on a paved road. It wouldn't be long before his off road skills get him stuck high center on a rock or rolled over in a ravine. Then, he gets out of the Subaru and the bull charges him. His fancy hat falls off, the bull crushes it. I see his short little legs are moving as fast as they can go, with his short little arms flailing as he runs for his life...

      Delete
  20. The temporary protective order was to have a hearing withing 20 days. But Billy filed the appeal before the 20 days. He was afforded due process when it was argued with the MSC.
    The hearing in the District Court did not get to dismiss or make permanent the protective order because he appealed. He did not want the court to make that determination he went to the next court above the DC. Thus when it was over the higher court the MSC made the Protective Order a permanent order.

    This all goes back to the question why did Windsor file the appeal before the hearing took place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, when minor children aren't involved, nor affairs of the heart, why would anyone protest a protective order? No one except Windsor would. By protesting it, he made clear that the order was necessary and well placed. Anyone except Windsor would have been able to foresee that. To Windsor, though, the protective order was another loss and losses to Windsor are of equal weight. All are intolerable.

      Delete
    2. No shit! Windsor is a creepy, geriatric freak that slinks around with a camera, complete with telescopic lenses, stalking dozens of individuals.
      Duh. That's not 'journalism' or 'exposing corruption'. That's Windsor.
      Seriously? What grown 65yr/old+ man drives across 5 states to film another man's truck for 90+ minutes? Or the door to that man's office? And lots of other weird, obsessive things? A stalking freak Windsor.
      Damn. No wonder his wife ditched his creepy ass!

      Delete
    3. @ 1:57 - exactly. Appeals (including interlocutory appeals) in criminal cases are usually filed AFTER a verdict, not before. I think his odds would have been much better if he'd challenged the TOP or parts of it in the hearing. But no, he jumped the shark and blew his wad. Now he's crying about all the trouble he caused for himself.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. More irrelevant smoke and mirrors from the monkey vexi's.
      You keep throwing out completely irrelevant issues. Why? Is that so you can keep avoiding the real issues that you screwed up? Seriously Sharon, just STFU.

      Delete
    6. "Also, if you plan to appeal a TOP, you HAVE to do it within a certain number of days of issuance. If you wait till the whole petition is over, you waive the right to appeal the TOP."

      I think you are still confusing civil vs criminal court procedures. But OK, have it your way. Windsor can't have it both ways. He either waives the hearing within 20 days or he waives appeal of the TOP. He made the decision to appeal, for which the TOP was AFFIRMED and EXTENDED - that means he lost. The court found that Windsor did, in fact, physically stalk and harass Boushie. It takes really twisted thinking for somebody to forget all that in order to make sense of Windsor's complaint that the TOP was void by statute.

      Delete
  21. We really are not why she is such a thread killer. Don't tell her we're line dancing!

    Mary Deneen
    With Prejudice, can be dangerous and cause serious injury.
    1 · More · 8 hours ago

    Mary Deneen
    Wrongful Arrest and Incarceration for Unconstitutional and Expired Gag Orders.
    1 · More · 8 hours ago

    Mary Deneen
    Ex Parte (TRO's) without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, not served and no hearing required by law - w/ unlawful taking of: life, ciivl liberties and property, without due process - in violation(s) under the 4th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.
    More · 8 hours ago

    Mary Deneen
    Arrested, denied Miranda, denied rights of a speedy trial, detained in state custody, denied rights of access to assets for basic life necessities and legal defense w/ Prejudice, w/ Malicious Prosecution, USC Civil Rights 1983 / Discrimination: a) w/ use of self-incrimination; b) w/ use of coercion; c) w/ use of violations against protections of double jeopardy; and, d) w/ an Unconstitutional Gag Order - in violation(s) under the lst, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th and 14th US Amendments
    More · 7 hours ago

    Mary Deneen
    ACLU filed a lawsuit against a Washington county for running a modern day debtors prison
    Link: http://truthvoice.com/?p=6094

    ACLU Sues Wash. County For Operating 'Modern-Day Debtors Prison'
    ACLU Sues Wash. County For Operating 'Modern-Day Debtors Prison'
    After years of drug addiction, Jayne Fuentes feels she's close to getting her life back on track, as long as she doesn't get arrested again — but not for using drugs. She fears it will be because she still owes court fines and fees, including hundreds of dollars for her public defender
    truthvoice.com ·
    More · 3 hours ago

    Mary Deneen
    State of MT illegally and unlawfully forced me to pay "thousands of dollars" for their court-appointed services - in violations under (ADA) (services, activities and programs) federal law.
    More · 2 hours ago

    Mary Deneen
    State of MT w/ Severe Prejudice, w/ fraud, deceit, extortion and malice, "knowingly-willfully" 'intentionally' and 'deliberately' forced me Indigent. Then with malicious retaliation, the state "intentionally" incarcerated me because they "intentionally" forced me indigent - causing me long-term and "irreparable" emotional, mental, physical and financial harm, damages and injury.
    More · 1 hour ago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 11, 2015 at 6:43 PM

      I know right? DAMN Granny! Get a hobby. Take up knitting. Put the ticks to work! Smoke a doobie. Something!! Anything but for godsakes, stop killing the threads!! What did they ever do to you???

      Delete
  22. Sharon will be back late?r It appears she has no come back.

    Montana laws 40-15-202 "A hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date that the court issues a temporary order of protection. The hearing date may be continued at the request of either party for good cause or by the court. If the hearing date is continued, the temporary order of protection must remain in effect until the court conducts a hearing. At the hearing, the court shall determine whether good cause exists for the temporary order of protection to be continued, amended, or made permanent. "

    302 states that "If a temporary order of protection or an order of protection issued by a court of limited jurisdiction is appealed or removed to an appellate court, the order continues in full force and effect unless modified by the appellate court."

    Windsor removed his TOP to the appeals case before the initial hearing so he falls under 302. It continues in full force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing I would like a definition on is "a court of limited jurisdiction." From someone besides Sharon. I keep thinking it's a broad category covering all courts who's findings can be subject to appeal. By far, most courts. If anyone has a good idea what it means, and they're not Sharon, Snoozan, whatever, I'd appreciate knowing what you know.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Nope you're wrong Sharon. You must have missed an appeal or ten. Also the continuance, the writ, and the stay. Clueless. Your arguments are VOID. Get used to it.

      Delete
    4. Cheap whore Sharon was up after daylight this morning, so the lid on crypt should open anytime and she'll be ready to defend her (Bill') brief she wrote and school any and everyone, over and over and over.
      Self taught, while on their knees or bent over, legal experts are far more superior in criminal and civil cases. Sharon will reassure anyone that bothers to read her commentaries of this.
      It's all in the nuances.

      Delete
    5. Didn't refresh page quick enough!
      See?

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. I did.
      From the nuances of Clark's brief.
      Yours, uh Windor's? Pffffffft.

      Delete
    8. Hey Sharon, can you explain all the nuances involved in turning tricks inside a strip club please? I've always wondered how you got away with it. I would believe you're an expert in that area.

      Delete
    9. Sharon's of limited knowledge. The court of "Limited Jurisdiction" was the court who issued the TOP. That is the only thing that matters. Not where he appealed. She also can't seem to see the word OR between appealed and removed. She also can't seem to understand it stays if full force until modified. Windsor could have requested a hearing to modify, drove his tankass back to Montana and argued. BUT he chose to keep giving it to the appeals courts who were following #3 (Which Clark noted) "continues in full force and effect unless modified by the appellate court." It was never modified it was REAFIRMED and EXTENDED.

      Delete
    10. Yeah, lots of nuances from Clark's brief.

      Do not want or need to know any nuances about Sharon's whoring. Ever.
      Shudder

      Delete
    11. We're all Team Clark! And her nuances in her brief.

      ChaChaCha!
      Still dancing!

      Delete
    12. And those little nuances will be brought into the court to prove that Windsor is deliberately toying with the court in order to evade justice. He has admitted to filing and removing in order to stall. More than that, for the wording in his filings, it is clear that the intent was to appeal, object, and overturn. He knew he had a losing case so instead of appealing correctly, he looked for loopholes.

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And those would all be pointed out in JC's brief. (I never said they were approved, just that he filed them. You know--the game) Those were the games your buttbuddy played to put off the hearing he claims is the reason the TOP is void. You two are just wrong. Flat out wrong.

      Delete
    2. Sssssshhhh! They're ignoring that! It's void. Never happened. Corruption. Just pick one, Bill and Sharon use all those and add extras.

      Delete
    3. This is THE SLAM DUNK, Snooze. If you were smart, you'd claim Billy kept this from you and you're no longer one of his legal advisers. After reading this opinion, even you should be able to do this math: Billy + Opinion = TOAST.

      DA-13-0785-Published-Opinion.pdf

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. And that is why you lose Sharon. You are a complete moron. You, Windsor and all the lawless losers are the corruption in the courts. You have zero capacity to understand the most clearly laid out rulings. Windsor will go to trial, and hopefully with your help, you just sunk any chance of leniency. That brief was a complete indication of his inability to STFU and leave Boushie alone. Still stomping his teeny tiny girly feet claiming he can do exactly what the courts told him he couldn't.

      Delete
    6. Belligerence, vindictiveness, vexatiousness, and ignorance all rolled up into the most disgusting trolls on the planet. Narcissist assholes.

      Delete
    7. It kind of appears that the document Anon @ 9:32 posted clearly laid out that it is Windsor that is the Cyberstalker as well as just a plain old stalker. Nice.

      Delete
    8. @ 10:14 - yup, you nailed that one.

      Maybe if we just copy and paste the comment at 8:33 in response to everything she posts, it will eventually sink in.

      "BUT he chose to keep giving it to the appeals courts who were following #3 (Which Clark noted) "continues in full force and effect unless modified by the appellate court." It was never modified it was REAFIRMED and EXTENDED."

      Delete
  24. Not only is Sharon so wrong it's funny, but thanks to her efforts, Bill won't be able to even mention this in front of a jury or he'll be sanctioned. Bill thought he was getting one over on the Montana legal system for so long, he can't recognize it when they get one on him. Too bad. Pro Ses have to know that there won't be allowances for their ignorance or lack of experience. There can't be. The courts would grind to a halt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon, I believe, did exactly that, by writing the brief she's so defensive of. Doubt is setting in with both her and Windsor.
      The nuances of hate for Sharon by Windsor as he realizes this? Priceless

      Delete
    2. And how long are we to believe Bill will wait for an answer? Not long. He'll be on the phone and emailing soon, and generally make a pest of himself. When he learns that a woman who was so confident in her work that she took a vacation BEAT him? Again? Oh the stomping and yelling and cursing will set records. Flocks of migratory birds will head North weeks early.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Washed up whore 9:09, did you ever trick with any of your father's military coworkers? Was the strip club you worked in close to his base?

      Delete
    5. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 11, 2015 at 9:26 PM

      It is funny, but I just keep scrolling. She's trolling and has nothing of value to add.

      Delete
    6. I always enjoy my dreams. Lots of fishing and chocolate labs and beagles and no Snoozan.

      Delete
    7. Yeah well, her obsession with him has never been healthy what with her little shrine blog devoted to him. As much as she wants him to win because she hates us, subconsciously she wants him to lose because she hates him. Her brain can't fire straight anyway, so she must have been all kinds of unfit as she wrote that. Serves him right for hiring an obsessive stalkerish person to defend him but that's all he has left.

      Delete
  25. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 11, 2015 at 9:11 PM

    HAHAHAHA OMG!! And....we're back to government paid cyberstalkers.
    Windsor just can't grasp that because he allegedly has an IP address that has to mean that is where the cyberstalking came from. All this from the guy who claims he pays for services from "Hidemyass" who has an editorial on their website that explains in depth how to change your IP address to anything you want. Which means, that he doesn't have SHIT for proof of who sent anything.

    Again, I highly suspect Cox behind it all because she has a vendetta against Boushie, which is why she and Windsor conspired to trash, stalk, harass, annoy and intimidate Boushie. There are several Lawless Losers such as Roy and MaryD along with Cox and some others who hate Montana and would like nothing more than to get even with the courts there. Seems he's the one who could be investigated for RICO, conspiring, and a whole mess of other illegal crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if Windsor actually read the article he posted. The first part could apply to Lawless America.

      "“Astroturfing refers to information dissemination campaigns that are sponsored by an organization, but are obfuscated so as to appear like spontaneous, decentralized “grassroots” movements. Astroturfing campaigns often involve spreading legally grey, or even illegal, content, such as defamatory rumors, false advertising, or suspect political messages. Although astroturfing predates the Internet, the ability to quickly mobilize large groups via crowd-sourcing systems has drastically increased the power of astroturfing.” The UCSB group coined the word crowdturfing for when a crowd of fake profiles is used to start rumors, give positive or negative reviews or comments, or to gather real people as followers for a point of view."

      But here's the point of the article: I admit it, I am a target – and I want to state that I do not think the Cyberstalker gang that went after me is government-related. I think they are some kind of right-wing nut jobs, as we on the liberal side like to say."

      "What You Can Do: To understand more about Crowdturfing, read the UCSB Study. If you see things like this online, avoid participating. Think about things. During the Cyberstalk attack against me, one of the fake profiles announced on Twitter that I was a lawyer in control of SOPA, the proposed upcoming internet legislation. Of course, I have nothing to do with SOPA and have not even gotten around to reading the draft of the law. But that does not keep a fake profile from tweeting my name and announcing such nonsense. Any thinking person would realize this, but Cyberstalkers, like the one that attacked me, are interested in getting the least thinking people on their side. That’s how it works. The whole point is to gather an irrational mob. Thinking people don’t participate."

      Delete
    2. http://suebasko.blogspot.com/2011/12/fake-profiles-used-for-spying.html

      Delete
    3. He read that article, just like Sharon read all of Windsor's filings, and the subsequent court responses. BAHAHAHAHA
      One way Windsor World. Can't see the real world because they are "SO FAR OUT THERE."

      (everything he complains and whines about is what HE does. Under the guise of "News," "Documentary," "Producer/Director," "Leader of the Revolution" (only not admitted to in court), and all the other vexi excuses to carry out terroristic, anti government, stalkerish criminal crap.

      Delete
    4. None of the lemmings read any of that. It's what Bill says it is plus whatever they add. Could be an article on lost breeds of European horses. Bill says it's about cyberstalking then it is. Bill says it supports his points of view, it does.

      Delete
    5. Grassroots? Organization? I give the admin and writers props, but where is the infrastructure to justify the use of either of those terms? Once again, can't keep his story straight in his conspiracy theory.

      Delete
    6. He still hasn't said who he pissed off so much that they would send a gang, or grassroots, or RICO, or mafia, or organization of cyberstalkers at him. Easy to blame the government and not name the name of the high powered person or organization to blame for it all. Who did he piss off? Who has the kind of money to sponsor whatever this week's explanation is for the monster under his bed? Who is the head of the snake? Mary's not the only one tick bite lyme dancing. Bill is dancing around all kinds of questions he won't answer. Sharon too.

      Delete
  26. Rises. Claps slowly for 10:10 PM. That and 10:14. Absolutely right. Good on ya. Powerful descriptions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Interest in his silly Facebook page is waning.

    Even the tick loon has cut back...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Frankly, I was against the idea of allowing Snooze to post here over the last few days, but now I understand how folks who didn't know her well
    has had a full dose of her bowel movements over the past few days, and these "specimens" can't be flushed by her or Windsor. In any case, don't you think it's time to go back flushing? You can always have another Snooze-fest.

    ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^^^^ Are you going to volunteer to monitor this blog all day and all hours of the night to remove her extreme volume of comments. Sorry but, the admins here, unlike Sharon, actually have real life stuff to do.

      Delete
    2. Dearest Anon @12:04?
      Thank you for your input. I do consider what y'all say.
      I don't want to delete or moderate anyone's comments, not even Sharon's. I'm not similar to Windsor in any way on this point. No, I don't agree with Sharon, yes, I think she's goofy, wrong, conniving and a Sovereign spewing moron. Welcome to America, she can be all those & less, apparently she's been much less, but she can continue to comment/share her views & opinions here. If or when Sharon or anyone else crosses a line tha I deem unacceptable (graphically pornographic, attempts to publish someone's personal information, i.e. address, phone#s, or spews about a minor child)? Comment away.
      As Admin above stated, we have real lives, go places, work, have families and friends, none of the crew is going to play babysitter to adults having a discussion about their opinions. If these adults can't follow along the very few 'rules' the crew has agreed upon? Commenters & readers are welcome to start their own garden party & invite whoever to join there.
      I, personally, like reading what Sharon comments, she's Windsor's mouthpiece because he's too pussy ass bitched to have an adult discussion, he's proven that repeatedly.
      For now, Sharon gets to prattle, so scroll past hers, chat her up or log off.
      We'll miss you, I hope you & others can respect this. If not? I'll ~~~wave~~~

      Delete
    3. No Worries.
      ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

      Delete