Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

THE BillSchit Brief!

***DISCLAIMER*** 
Heavy gauge tinfoil suggested prior to attempted reading!


















179 comments:

  1. Windsor needs to come to terms with the facts: 1] He violated the law; 2] Windsor is being held accountable for violating the law - not because of corruption or some conspiracy against him / to stop his movie that never existed, 3] DA Clark is kicking Windsor's arse.- 4] When he goes to trial, our dear DA Clark is going to be wiping the courtroom floor with Windsor.

    Sometimes I wonder if Windsor has privately come to terms with the facts - and his Billschit filings in this case are centered on his fears of reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All that aside, perhaps Billshit should go back and re read ALL his appeals. HAHAHAHAHA DOH!!

      Billshit now--they should have held the hearing
      Billshit then--you can't hold a hearing because I appealed it, and appealed it, and appealed it.

      All things Billshit. One way Windsor World. Only thing he doesn't cite is the actual statute that kicks his WillyWonkaAss

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

      Delete
  2. 9+

    Bill Windsor
    5 mins · Edited ·
    FEEDBACK ON RESPONSE BRIEF FROM SNOOZAN, FORMERLY A JOEY
    I received an email that says:
    Excellent brief Bill! I concur that the TOP was void to begin with.
    And all this time you have been insisting that the TOP was expired? Like you said, if it ever WAS valid, it was definitely expired before the "violations".
    Oh and then there are the "violations". You have been charged with violations for posting to LA and Twitter when there is nothing in the TOP restraining you from doing so? Pfffftttt. The DA was beyond negligent in bringing those charges.
    You've provided the court with a treatise on TOPs so maybe Ms. Clark can use that to guide her in the future. Assuming she understands the brief.
    The GENII don't seem to understand a word you said. Maybe you need to produce a kid's version of the brief, where you limit your writing to about a third grade level. That might help the GENII.
    If the court doesn't dismiss the charges by the end of the week, I think you can consider each additional day as irrefutable proof of malicious prosecution. You raised these objections to the validity of the TOP EIGHT months ago? They got some splain'in to do.
    Snooooozzan
    P.S. from Bill:
    Here's the Third Grade Version:
    Judge Sam Warren screwed up. He issued the Temporary Protective Order ("TOP") for 24 days. The maximum allowed by law is 20 days. As the order violated the statute, that means the judge had no "jurisdiction" to issue the order is therefore, by law, VOID. It never existed.
    If you pretend that the order and statutes don't say 20 days, and if you pretend I have no Constitutional rights to due process,then the TOP was appealed. The appeal did not deny jurisdiction to deal with the matter in the municipal court. But Judge Sam Warren ignored it. It then expired according to its terms, which was September 16, 2013. There was never a continuance of the hearing or a stay -- ever.
    When it was "remanded" from the appeal on November 14, 2013, Judge Sam Warren was obligated to hold the hearing, but he didn't. Worst case, the TOP expired on December 1, 2013, the 21st day in the municipal court.
    I appealed the first appellate court's order to the Montana Supreme Court. There is no continuance or stay unless requested and granted. No requests. Jurisdiction over the case remained in the municipal court. But never a hearing.
    The State of Montana took the position that the TOP was valid for 546 days. There has never been a temporary order of protection valid for longer than 60 or so days anywhere in America in history. It's called the Constitution; you can read it on Wikipedia. Read the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
    I have told Jennifer Clark most of this prior to today. This is a case of outrageously malicious prosecution.
    Jennifer Clark and the State of Montana were slam dunked by me today, and Judge James A. Haynes now has the ball. He's taller than me, and I understand he is an excellent player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hilarious. They're like two side of the same damaged brain. No wonder they are where they are in life - nowhere, and with no one but ghosts and mentally deficient sheep.

      Delete
    2. The funniest lie-line in that complete BS post is .... LOL !!

      "SNOOZAN, FORMERLY A JOEY"

      Delete
    3. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 6, 2015 at 6:49 PM

      The Vexi favorite word. "VOID."
      I don't like this order, therefor it is "VOID." He's still claiming Thrash's order is VOID. Numerous other courts don't agree. Pretty sure after everyone has passed around THIS laughable brief, the name Sharon Galloway and Crystal Cox will be imprinted in the Vexatious Litigant Hall of Shame along with Windsor's. Holy crap! Morons.

      Delete
    4. Two sides of the same damaged brain, great analogy. As exhibited by twisting of disagreement with Windsor's claims into something that we must not understand.

      But, Snoozie concurs, the brief is void. Wow. That's the game then. Irrefutable proof Windsor's brief is going to hit a home run, is a slam dunk, split the goal posts, pull off a hat trick, take the checkered flag. Right?

      "I concur that the TOP was void to begin with."

      Delete
    5. "The Ghost Wench hath spoken..."

      Delete
    6. Is that what that is? Tales from the crypt?

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

      Delete
    8. Pfft! I don't know Derek Bok so I reject him or her.

      If we're such a group of idiots, why can't you just FO?

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

      Delete
    10. wow..... I do not post to you because you are a Flying monkey to Bill Windsor ...... ask him why he went after me and AMPP.... the real reason is because I ask a simple Question.... Which was why does he support know wife beating that lobby to give a Attempted murderer of a child a second chance to his victim .....Really, you support people that are monsters but because they give you the time of day you come here to do his dirty work.

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

      Delete
    12. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 8, 2015 at 5:10 PM

      I can actually agree with Sharon's above comment. Her association with Windsor isn't about Bill. She's Bill's stooge because she's totally obsessed with getting revenge on the commenters here for not bowing to her self perceived supreme intellect. She was shunned by the blogs and has been unable to get over the butt hurt for almost two years now. Since she's a broke, insignificant troll who is unable to get her vengeance on strangers, she needs Bill to come after us so she can seek her revenge vicariously through him.

      Delete
  3. Okay this is just outright funny. "If the court doesn't dismiss the charges by the end of the week, I think you can consider each additional day as irrefutable proof of malicious prosecution. "

    And then what, Snooze? What's Windsor going to do with this proof. Appeal? Nope. Already tried. Run? Use it as an excuse to run? Bill's had excuses for that all along, neatly filed away. You know that.

    Irrefutable? Horse pucky. Already refuted. Windsor is out of options. Run or get ready for trial. I suppose he could hire a real lawyer and never speak to you again, Snooze. If he can find one who won't tell him to shove it.

    Seriously, what's Windsor going to do? No one will listen to him. Dismiss the case or ummm... or I'll... Dismiss it or I'll have irrefutable proof you're corrupt!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dismiss it or I'll post irrefutable proof you're corrupt on Facebook !!

      Delete
    2. Dismiss it, or Windsor will buy Judge Haynes' name and set up site to post irrefutable proof of his corruption.

      Oh wait. Never mind, Windsor already did that.

      http://judgejamesahaynes.com/

      Delete
  4. Criminal appeals are done while you're serving your sentence. Without your laptop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Criminal appeals are AFTER conviction & sentencing.
      #ProSeBaby and #CrackLegalEagles winging Windsor's criminal defense.

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

      Delete
  5. Tick Lady has commenced to me-tooing. This could go on all night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it, she always has to chime in. Completely rhetorical of course but DAMN!!

      Wait, what about me? Notice me!! Notice me!! Pat my head Bill!! I'm a good lemming...see...I'm the other side of your warped brain. Sorry Mary, but Rebecca was also in jail all the same times Bill was. She's one upped you every post. Awwwww (And that doesn't mean she posts more repetitive crap, she's just, you know, right there livin' the same jail life Cheersing!

      Delete
  6. Windsor: "I appealed the first appellate court's order to the Montana Supreme Court. There is no continuance or stay unless requested and granted. No requests."

    This is at the heart of Bill's case. He needs to add something for it to be correct. There is no continuance or stay unless requested AND/OR granted. It's the Montana Supreme Court, they don't have to have a request. What they say goes, requested or not. It WAS granted. That's all it needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no authority to suggest a TOP would continue through not only one, but two appeals.

      If twice remit, you must acquit.

      Source: Johnny Cochran's "Big Book of Legal Loopholes."

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

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

      Delete
    4. Oh Snooze, I grant you leave to go feed your flying monkeys. See how that works...you didn't even have to ask!

      Delete
    5. Snoozan @12:17. You're right. I stated that poorly and I noticed the poor wording right after I pressed the publish button. I'll rephrase it and see if you can pick it apart when I choose my words with greater care as to what the Montana Supreme Court actually said, which is not that they granted anything. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the District Court, WHICH WERE:

      "The TOP shall remain in full force and effect until modified, if at all, by this court."

      So there you go. It was not requested, but the TOP remained in effect and that was the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. Okay, let's get something else straight. Does Windsor really think that Judge Haynes will overrule the Montana Supreme Court and issue a dismissal on that basis? Really? You, Snoozan, are you confident he will do that - that he CAN do that? Are you crazy? If there was a slam dunk, it was Jennifer Clark providing the relevant findings of both the 4th District Court AND the Montana Supreme Court with her brief. Judge Haynes CAN'T dismiss! Can your superstitious, inconsistent little mind comprehend that single fact? He asked Jennifer Clark for that and she provided it. Now there will not only be a trial, there will be a trial in which Windsor, under threat of sanctions, cannot question the validity of the TOP! Smooth move!

      Delete
    6. And don't you dare say, Snooze, that the Montana Supreme Court can't do that. They guarandamndid it. Windsor would have to win in the SCOTUS before his scheduled trial to do anything about it.

      You. Lose. KayBye.

      Delete
    7. Anon 4:35,

      With all due respect, your reply is excellent but you're way too kind to Snooze; her definition of grant is restricted to the first denotation and ignores the second:


      verb
      verb: grant; 3rd person present: grants; past tense: granted; past participle: granted; gerund or present participle: granting

      1.
      agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
      "a letter granting them permission to smoke"
      synonyms: allow, accord, permit, afford, vouchsafe
      "he granted them leave of absence"
      antonyms: refuse
      give (a right, power, property, etc.) formally or legally to.
      "the amendment that granted women the right to vote"
      synonyms: give, award, bestow on, confer on, present with, provide with, endow with, supply with
      "he granted them $20,000"
      2.
      agree or admit to (someone) that (something) is true.
      "he hasn't made much progress, I'll grant you that"
      synonyms: admit, accept, concede, yield, allow, appreciate, recognize, acknowledge, confess; agree
      "I grant that the difference is not absolute"

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

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

      Delete
    10. This isn't correct: " No court, not even the MTSC, had authority to continue the TOP beyond the first appeal without a hearing."

      The Montana Supreme Court and any other court has the authority to do anything it does that is not undone or changed by a higher court. You may not think they're right in doing something, or that they're abiding by the U.S. Constitution, but if what they do stands, they had that authority. There is one arbiter of authority in these United States and that is SCOTUS. If they allow the MTSC to do something, they're giving it that authority. If this isn't true then who decides upon authority? You? Jesus? The MTSC affirmed the District Court's continuing the TOP. Unless they're overruled, the TOP was adequately continued, certainly to the extent that Judge Haynes can't rule otherwise. I'm not saying Judge Haynes can't dismiss, just that the issue of the TOP being operable and in force cannot be the reason.

      Waiting for you to bend logic back upon itself and disagree.

      Delete
    11. No, Snoozan. You have it backwards. The MTSC didn't say the District Court COULDN'T continue the TOP, so the TOP stayed operable and in force. You'll see. You won't admit you were wrong when that happens, but you'll know it and that's good enough for me.

      Delete
    12. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 7, 2015 at 9:26 PM

      It's ok Anon @ 9:10. Windsor obviously isn't sharing everything with her. But why is that surprising? He doesn't share the majority of his stuff with the lemmings. It doesn't support the whole "Corruption" gig. If they knew, they'd just leave and find someone else to worship. Actually, the majority already have...

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

      Delete
    14. Windsor is already softening on the whole slam dunk thing.

      Next he'll be inviting lemmings to attend his trial... Again. Are you going Snooze? I am if I can swing it. I've got a shop in Sidney, 8 hrs away in good weather. Not a lot of good weather in Montana in January, so it's not a (oh boy) slam dunk.

      Delete
    15. " Really the simplest route to the end of this circus is for Haynes to agree that the order was void from its inception."

      Really, the simplest route to end this circus would have been for Windsor to challenge the TOP on 9/9/13, in the hearing set by statute. But, no. He appealed, didn't like the opinion, so appealed again, didn't like the opinion, and on and on we go until now it really is a circus. Same old story, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with Billschite.

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

      Delete
  7. Love this: "I have told Jennifer Clark most of this prior to today."

    Okay, but Bill here's the deal. She doesn't work for you and she's not one of your tiny shook-up flock. You are not the boss of Jennifer Clark. If you doubt me on this, wait and see in January. Things won't proceed in a fashion that will meet your approval. Honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep. Telling Clark anything? Won't even be January before his shaking gets much worse.

      Delete
    2. Ace up his sleeve:

      Can you say January ice?

      Delete
    3. That hasn't formed yet! Pesky details.
      Windsir never allows any truth get in the way of BillSchit story.
      He really should download some weather apps to his iPhones, be easier to know when any ice MIGHT form.

      Delete
    4. Why would he want to know that? So far, he trips before the ice storms hit. It's good to be a leader.

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

      Delete
    6. How do you know, Snooze? Did one of your ghost friends tell you?

      Delete
    7. This is @8:49 Snoozan. I seem to anger you often. I'm pleased. I re-read my post above that seemed to cause steam to shoot out your ears as if you're a cartoon. Where do you find I'm explaining the criminal justice system? I can't see it. As for Windsor notifying the assistant prosecutor her charges have no basis in law, I guess it isn't prohibited, but important? Useful? At all pragmatic? Do you think there's even a remote chance Jennifer Clark is intimidated by Windsor? Or would you guess, perhaps, that she thinks he's a clown? Which is most likely. You seem emotionally invested in her. Does it bother you that she doesn't know you even exist? Please note I'm not explaining the criminal justice system here, nor did I before. I'm just wondering what people think of one another.

      Very soon, Snooze, Windsor is going to have to change gears. He's going to trial in January unless he makes some sort of deal. I'm told over and over that a deal is not going to happen, so let's suppose that's accurate. Also, no more talk about a dismissal. No deal, no dismissal. Can you advise Windsor on how to work with a Jury of Montana citizens? I've been before a jury twice as an expert on a specific area of engineering. One of those instances was a criminal trial in Colorado. I was very impressed with the performance of the attorneys for both the prosecution and defense. I wasn't impressed by their knowledge of the criminal justice system, Snoozan. Neither slam dunked the other on points of Constitutional law. They were very nice to me and during the portion of the trial I saw, they were very nice to each other. Here's what they both did splendidly: through their questions to me, my answers, and most importantly their demeanor, they made every impression on that jury they set out to make. When I was done, I had the impression that the jury liked both of them and maybe even me.

      My point: Windsor won't be playing a game of procedural and Constitutional craftsmanship in front of that jury. He will be trying to convince them of his innocence. Jennifer Clark knows this and is very experienced with juries in criminal trials. They probably tend to like her. Ms Clark will attempt to paint a very creepy picture of Bill Windsor. Will (Pro Se Baby wink smirk evil grin) Windsor help her paint that creepy picture? Is he capable of not being fucking creepy?

      There. Now, accuse me of trying to explain the damned criminal justice system. Because that's all you've got. Moron.

      Delete
    8. So, I'm guessing I missed a Snoozie post again. But 3:01 makes good points even in a one-sided conversation.

      Windsor appears to have already screwed himself in approaching a criminal matter as if it's a civil issue. He can't do anything about his creepy appearance. And he gave Ms. Clark the irrefutable proof she needs to make her case beyond all doubt - all that stalking video and all those posts reflecting Windsor's plan to stalk Boushie. Then, when he gets up there to explain to the jury how 24 members of the MT judiciary conspired to deprive him of his freedom, based on input from a blog in TX with a funny sounding name, he's going to look like what he is, a creepy old man with paranoid delusions.

      Snoozan's time might be better spent in helping Windsor overcome his social deficiencies to woo a jury. Not that she would be any better at it but it certainly can't hurt him any worse than he's hurt himself.

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

      Delete
    10. Snoozie...Windsor is a weakling and you know this. You've told us so. If he wasn't a weakling then you wouldn't be interested in him. You don't seem to know how to have a mature relationship. Your pattern is propping up weak and damaged men and taking the rewards from the work they think they are getting credit for. And if he wasn't weak, then you wouldn't be so angry or obsessed with this blog. Toodles :) :) :)

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

      Delete
    12. Okay Snooze. I don't see any use in arguing whether or not Windsor's charges (case, whatever) will be dismissed. That IS the "Battle of the Briefs," though. Case is dismissed, Windsor wins. Case isn't dismissed, Clark Wins. Just so you don't try something phony like claiming Windsor still won without that dismissal. That would be a troll's work.

      We'll know soon enough.

      Delete
    13. Gross abuse of power? I see malicious violation of the petitioner's rights and gross abuse of the judicial process. This could have all been over with by now if Windsor had not gummed up and stalled the process.

      Delete
  8. I recall numerous boastful Facebook posts by Windsor of how he was going to be victorious against Matt O'Conner in Missouri. Then nothing. Windsor quit and ran. O'Conner? Still has a thriving law firm AND a TV series.
    Hmmmmm?
    Windsor trying to convince himself? the window licking lunar tuners? He's not convincing anyone else with that clusterferbuffle 'brief'.
    Notice that Windsor has yet to mention receipt/acceptance of the BillSchit brief (he gives the credit to Sharon)? Nope. Me either.
    Vegas odds? Pffffyllloo
    And MunchenMaryD? Thread killing all about her in the comments.
    Clark's brief the judge actually requested? It's a great read & her exhibits? Perfect.
    #TeamClark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If nothing else, I will give Mary props for consistency...

      Delete
    2. Me too! It's always always all about her, any day.
      MunchenMaryD has added some new Mary manure in the past months.

      Delete
  9. Mary Deneen: "Joey's - definitely anti-Lyme disease awareness/education "sicko/attackers.""

    HAHAHAHA! HAHA! That's sweet!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No not anti-lyme awareness Mary, just anti lying Munchausen sicko who's obsessed with claiming by and thru epic spew, you've got it if you read it--repetitive things you can't prove because your court documents that you're buddy posted as well as on the docket PROVE you're mentally deranged, you lie repeatedly and need HELP!!

      Delete
    2. No, MunchenMaryD, no one is anti-Lyme awareness. As with everything else, MaryD, you latch onto whatever you can twist and spin.
      We are anti perpetual victim and anti lie. Your continuous and misleading, repetitive monologue of how you, MaryD, are being denied your 'children'? That? Is a lie. You have now ADULT children and those adults do speak of you, not very much and not at all favorably. You humiliate them. They do love you, you're their mother, but they don't like you, they yearn for a real mother, to spend quality time with and to enjoy their children, as grandmothers do, not you to ramble about yourself, whining, as you have for years, about your delusional and demented "been done so wrong" song. You know this MaryD, your "children" have told you many times.
      MaryD? Your tick and Lyme campaign are warped, you are sick IMO, but it is not Lyme's related.
      Many individuals are interested in your ability to travel, your physical activities, and if your physical activities match what you have claimed to meet eligibility for Social Security Disability benefits.
      Why is it that you anti-government, anti-American, avoid paying taxes, Sovereign freaks hate our nation, yet they don't hate mooching benefits and services from the US government?
      And, MaryD? Every tidbit of information about you? YOU published, over and over on the internet, no one else, just YOU.
      MaryD? Have you ever thought of spending as much time with and for your children (and now) grandchildren as you do online, chasing after Bill Windsor?
      Truth MaryD, try telling it by and thru, not violating it.

      Delete
  10. LOL!

    Bill Windsor ... "Jennifer Clark KNOWS that what she did was absolutely wrong. I have written her and met with her, and I have a paper trail a mile wide and ten miles long. I believe she felt the County Attorney's Office had Judge Haynes in its pocket."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Talking to Windsor because I know he reads every comment here)

      Right, Bill. But showing up in an ill-fitting bulletproof vest and stalking someone at their workplace, that's not wrong? That jury will be taught the REASONS that protective order was put in place, Bill. Not just the ways you violated it. Most people find what you did and very specifically how you looked doing it... CREEPY. I can understand why you're avoiding trial. You don't stand a chance of being found innocent and the amazing thing is that 90% of the material evidence that will be used against you CAME FROM YOUR OWN VIDEO CAMERA! Tell us again how smart you are.

      Delete
    2. Knowing what you did was absolutely wrong

      That's what's known in law as scienter--one of the elements of constructive fraud, and is exactly what Windsor had when he wrote ten friends and told them he knew he needed a legal entity formed for Lawless America and a 501(c)(3), but he couldn't own it. Poor Billy...he took contributions anyway.

      Delete
    3. In the state of Montana ....
      MCA 40-15-202. Order of protection – hearing – evidence. (1) 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.

      MCA 40-15-302. Appeal to district court – order to remain in effect. (1) An
      order issued by a justice’s court, municipal court, or city court pursuant to
      40-15-201 is immediately reviewable by the district judge upon the filing of a
      notice of appeal. The district judge may affirm, dissolve, or modify an order of a
      justice’s court, municipal court, or city court made pursuant to 40-15-201 or
      40-15-204.
      (2) A case in which an order has been issued by a justice’s court, municipal court,
      or city court pursuant to 40-15-201 or 40-15-204 may be removed to district court
      upon filing of a notice of removal.
      (3) 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.

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

      Delete
  11. Now while Billy was sorting out all of his Brief on the couch for Montana, I can tell you that none of that was for Montana. Windsor e-filed the brief. So what are those piles of BS on the floor you ask?


    It is this...

    iled clerk order: The opening brief [16] submitted by Mr. William M. Windsor is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The Court has reviewed the excerpts of record [16] submitted by Mr. William M. Windsor. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [9703459] (KT) [Entered: 10/01/2015 09:51 AM]


    Mind you that it needs mailed by the 8th. The facts are that he already had two times he asked for an extension on this. He seems to be sooooo busy trying to argue something that the MSC has already ruled on several times. Will he miss mailing this out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shhhhh! He doesn't want anyone to know about that case brief. His main focus point for the lemmings is the criminal case. They can't focus on too many cases at once.

      Delete
  12. Windsor reads this stuff. Hours after I posted a comment talking about "screwing the pooch" Windsor used that same phrase against the prosecutor on his Facebook page. I cannot find it used once anywhere else in his millions of online sentences.

    Hiya, Bill! Gonna try to sneak into Canada? Don't. They check for passports. They check everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if he would have shown UP at court in TX, he could have his passport. But, he's the kind of guy who doesn't follow through and thinks playing court games and flinging frivolous excuses works to create a "paper trail" of "Corruption" against the Judicial system. (He doesn't seem to understand the trail points right back to him)

      Delete
    2. Windsor and all the window licker lunar tuners read here. They don't ever even close the tab, they just refresh the page, up to 83 times by one yesterday.
      Why Windsor and the rest don't just own it? Is a complete mystery. They read avidly at the Clubhouse, too. Yes, Windsor, your audience isn't captivated by you all the time, they wander off. Ask Darash, he's got most all your former LA group on board his NLA.

      And, yes @Ida, I have been following Darash, as well a the hilarious commenters at Fogbow. Their commentary on Darash and all the SovCitz groups is so funny. They barely mention Windsor, he's not worthy of a mention!

      Delete
  13. Not to belabor this, but I wonder if Windsor realizes everything he videotaped on that Montana SB sting series is just plain creepy. Windsor, people don't find you suave or interesting or charming or handsome or funny. They find you creepy. You creep people out. The housekeeping folks at the hotels where you stay complain about you. They think you're freaking weird and scary and gross. We can't wait for that jury to get a load of Bill Windsor. Watch their faces, Bill, and remember what I said. See if I'm right.

    Maybe I'm being mean, but somebody needed to say this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 1:20? What you said isn't mean.
      Windsor is creepy. Fact. Marriott employees, car rental employees, restaurants' staff, court clerks' staff, Kinko's employees, AT&T store employees, jailers, law enforcement officers all agree with you. Windsor is and has always been creepy weird.

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

      Delete
    3. They have not been secretive.
      The only proven stalker, now on trial for multiple protective order violations while stalking is Windsor.

      It has been said that a hoe can't be made a housewife, could include a criminal defense paralegal to that.
      Hahahahahahaha

      Delete
  14. THIS ARTICLE FEATURES PHOTOS OF THE "MONTANA MAFIA" - THE ROGUE'S GALLERY OF CORRUPTION IN MONTANA - THE PEOPLE WHO SET OUT TO DESTROY BILL WINDSOR AND LAWLESS AMERICA...THE MOVIE.

    Translation: Here's everyone I could possibly think of that I'm butthurt over because they wouldn't let me come to Missoula and strut around bothering everyone and acting like a bigshot. I went there on a sting which is a thing where I spy on people to prove they're stalking me. I left out the name of the judge who I've commanded to dismiss charges against me but he's probably not obeying my commands so ill have to write a special thing about him. He's a tall man, say notes I took while dreaming about large African-American athletes, so obviously he was stalking me too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Missoula Municipal Court Judge Sam Warren unlawfully restrained Bill Windsor for 546 days in a plot to get him..."

      Did Judge Warren tell Windsor to drive across several states to stalk, harass, and annoy the University, the Boushies and everyone else he's now calling "Mafia?" How exactly is this Judge Warrens fault, and not the fault of the fat, bloated, shaky, creepy stalker himself?

      Windsor? You are the only one to blame. You have a little "Mafia" of your own. Lynch mob. Cult. Look in the mirror and point your finger, because the only one who's being exposed is YOU!!

      Delete
    2. Did he get some bad news about his "Slam Dunk Brief?" Why the change in attitude? If he was fixing to get the GPS anklet off and go on his merry way, why is he so irked now? Why does it matter? He wasn't "Restrained" at all right? If it was "Void"? It didn't exist.

      Something tells me, all that hot dogging, show boating, and Sharon gloating was all for show. Windsor's probably got his "Can you believe it...I provided undeniable arguments in my brief, but those corrupt mafia folks in MT refuse to abide by my orders. Looks like Bill Windsor is going to trial, and most likely spend the rest of his life behind bars..." post already ready to go. Hasn't he flamed them enough yet? Threeish years of flaming anti government crap? Based on lies? SMH

      Delete
    3. 9:03 AM -- I might be wrong about this (I don't think so, obviously) but for Bill right now in the Battle of the Briefs, no news is bad news. The trial date is set, courtroom reserved, etc. I don't think the Judge is required to announce anything if he sides with Jennifer Clark's brief and finds fault with Windsor's. NOT dismissing the charges is the status quo. On the other hand, if the Judge decides to dismiss the charges against Windsor, he'll need to issue that decision relatively soon. I think end of business hours Friday would be a good artificial deadline, although I've no firm reason for picking that date beyond thinking the Judge would want to put this crap behind him this week.

      So loosely, if there's Windsor's coveted dismissal, everyone would know about it soonish and if there's no dismissal, that might not be communicated at all. Again, I have to staple a huge, "I THINK, ANYWAYS" to what I've just written here. I would happily yield to anyone knowing the facts in order to displace my guesses.

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

      Delete
    5. "He is entitled to due process which means he is entitled to know how the court is going to rule on a dispositive issue."

      He'll know when there's a criminal trial he's expected to attend. And no, Snooze, I'm not Attorney or even an attorney. Read. I was an expert witness regarding an engineering question. That doesn't rule out my being an attorney, but it teaches that I'm probably an engineer. I am. A successful one. So you, a complete failure calling me stupid doesn't pack much of a punch. I'm certain Jennifer Clark would say the same about your critiques of her competence if she knew you existed. As it stands, you're not successful enough, ever, to even ping her radar.

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

      Delete
  15. I wanted to see an actual lemming victory: Joli Pesek "Im living proof that fighting till the bitter end pays off!!! Its been a long road, and im still recovering....1 day at a time;) Can't wait to see u again!!! Justice will prevail!!!"

    I found another lying loser:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0_ge1b6Zdk

    http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/court-of-appeals-division-i/2012/67520-6.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. More Translation: I was installing a telephoto lens on my best video camera in the world in order to prove the girls in the University of Montana Women's Athletic Dormitory were stalking me when Campus Police, guns drawn, presented me with a protective order stating I had to stay 1500 feet from anything with a heartbeat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, but, it's his "Constitutional Right" to film people without their knowledge or permission. It's "NEWS." He's "Media."

      HAHAHAHAH that is about as LAME as Don Acree's breaking into his neighbors home, to claim SHE was stalking HIM!!

      Delete
  17. Is anyone else keeping an eye on NLA? Just in case MI residents aren't up to date: Darash was approached in this week's conference call to help revive the CLGJ in MI. Schied received honorable and un-honorable un-mention (they weren't naming names but clearly discussed Schied's efforts). Darash has concerns about joining up with that group, he believes their efforts are illegal. LMAO because Darash basically said he's out on attracting FBI attention. Yup, like the FBI isn't watching him and didn't contact him too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darash doesn't want to get mixed up with any of those other groups. NLA is paying his mortgage. He can't risk losing his followers or drawing the attention of anyone who could put him at risk of getting shut down.

      Delete
    2. LMAO! This is where ALL the sov cit bullies derail. It's what derailed Windsor too. Those pesky FBI guys.

      But, they are going to present their "Undenyable, irrefutable proof of corruption to THE Eff Bee Eye for investigations. That is, until the FBI contacts them first to say, hey, WTF are you doing? You can't do this...then the Eff Bee EYE is the bad guy, and covering up "Corruption."

      Laughable at best. Big bad Billy sure put his Puffed up tail between his legs after DC. Not a mention of that whole Puffery from DC. Nope, but he's damn sure gonna list how DC wasn't a failure in court documents. LIE!! It was abysmal. The DC taped diatribe is yet another piece of "Filmed" proof of exactly how Windsor tricked people, conned them out of financial contributions to "make the movie" yet, those funds were going to fund "GRIP." Where are the tax papers for this? Has he filed them yet? Because this little criminal klusterfuck was for alleged "Filming for the Movie and TV show."

      Pony up the paperwork to show legitimate companies Windsor. Pony up contracts between you and the airing company. Pony up anything tangible to show which companies should be charged with your stalking activities too. Did you report any of these "Companies" on your taxes? If not, then what company was funding this portion of the "film?" All those pesky details yet, no answers. "Because I said so" doesn't support legitimacy of your excuse of "Media" for your "Freedom of the Press" argument.

      Delete
    3. Another thing to LMAO: Windsor and Darash take exception to and fuss about being forced to pay court fees for their frivolousness. The first part of this week's call was Darash explaining why NLA's fees for reviewing lemming court filings has jumped from $30 to $60. But it's OK if you don't have the $60, your case will sit in a pile until enough donations are received to cover your costs.

      Delete
  18. (I thought Snooze was his ''virtual law partner" ).

    BILL, if you want those charges dismissed, call 703 622 5181. http://lawpartneroncall.comHome
    WE become your VIRTUAL law partner…

    Bill Windsor Hi Bob. Thanks, I will call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL I guess "Bob" didn't like the brief? Wasn't as taken back or left breathless like Sharon and Bill about it. HAHAHA
      Well, aint nothin' ol' Bob can help out with now virtually. (not that anyone could who believes Windsor's side anyway...)

      Delete
  19. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 7, 2015 at 10:04 AM

    LMAO it's the battle of the best lemming. In one corner we have Rhode Island Rebecca. She's compared her jail stays to Windsors. They are two peas in the same jail pod. Both being targeted by the Corrupt Govt.

    And in the other corner we have Munchausen Ticked off MaryD. She's compared herself in every way, in every story to be Windsor's mini me. There isn't a story he can post, that she can't match.

    "Rebecca McLaughlin-- Oh my Bill Windsor that article looks like my RI Lawless America posters and flyers. Put on your armour because after I made the posters and flyers they beat the hell out of me. I didn't even know who I was or where I lived! It was intentional.malicious knowing torture. The truth is I went up against the most powerful people in RI and I am still standing! One of them in federal prison ... Gordon Fox who had one of the most powerful positions in RI the Speaker of the House!"

    "Mary Deneen-- MT Missoula Justice Court Judge Sam Warren Denied My Due Process Rights for a Petition and Affidavit for an EXPARTE (TRO) against U of MT employee Sean Boushie for his repeated vicious and violent criminal attacks, criminal defamation, libel, slander, intimidation, coercion and veiled and filed threats sent w/ a "Big Knife" during MT court proceedings."

    I say, this round went to Rhode Island Rebecca. Her sentence structure is closer to actual sentences. Mary's is just the same bunch of words smooched together that leave the reader shaking their head, thinking I know she thinks she has a point here... maybe some day, she'll finally make it?

    Stay tuned for round two. (you just know it's going to be a long, long, long battle)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 7, 2015 at 10:15 AM

      Mary must be experiencing menopause. She hasn't seen a period in a long time!

      Delete
    2. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 7, 2015 at 1:18 PM

      LOL!! She had to prove you wrong. She threw in ONE and added more, but the round still goes to Ramblin Rhode Island Rebecca. Kinda reminded me of that guy that just lost a match, got knocked out and on his way out of the ring, kept pooping on the mat. hahahaha

      Mary Deneen MT Missoula Justice Court Judge Sam Warren Denied my rights of my Fiduciary Attorney-Client Relationship during MT court proceedings without violent criminal Defamation, Intimidation, Coercion and Veiled and Vile Threats sent w a "Big Knife" by and thru a U of MT employee, Sean Boushie - causing "intentional" infliction of emotional duress, harm, and fear for my safety. Denied Due Process w/ Severe Prejudice, Abuse of Power, Abuse of Process and Obstruction of Justice."

      Delete
    3. Is there no one else to bring awareness to Lyme's?

      Delete
  20. He has publicly announced his interest in stalking people with a camera before -- listen to the first five minutes or so of

    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-115884/TS-639309.mp3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Wow. That's all it takes to get threatened by Blowhard Bill. Tell him you believe he's wrong, doing something illegal, morally unethical, not following laws, etc, and BAM! He'll give out a personal email address that was posted in public, read a private email (or post it for the world to see) in this case, reading it, now claiming she's defaming him when NO ONE would have known had he just STFU--and give them the "I'm gonna sue you..." standard rant.

      I'd have to agree with Roxanne. She had a ton of people she had been working with for years prior to Windsor finding her--probably a set up from Cox--who he then started soliciting. She was absolutely right and Windsor was dead ass wrong.

      Great find. I had forgotten about that one. But, it does show the "Real Windsor" when you don't agree with him.

      Delete
    2. Ohh the memories. Back in the good old days before Bill voided the Thrash order and he didn't think he could harass people with lawsuits. All he could do was harass them by stalking and filming them.

      Delete
    3. ***correction*** WASN'T posted in public

      Delete
  21. FYI, in case anyone really wanted to know the truth (re BillSchit Brief written by stripping, lap dancing, paralegal Sharon) just dial 406-375-6555. That is the clerk's office. http://ravalli.us/129/Clerk-Recorder
    Nice people, very factual and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bill Windsor Thanks so much, Connie. I spent 25 minutes on the phone with a reporter. We shall see. She was shaking her head as it is so hard to believe.

    How did he see her shaking her head through the phone? I think I smell Billshit again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No shit, was he FaceTiming her? >eyeroll<
      Windsor talked to a reporter? Pffffft!
      Why would a card carrying member of the press & a filmmaker need a reporter? Windsor claims some 38,000 Facebook followers on his Lawless America page, he can't gather enough interest from ⅛ of those?
      #WindsorMath
      #WindsorWhopperWednesday

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Being a "Card carrying member of the Press" surely he'd have "friends" in the industry right? All these years later after all his billshittery? We need media. No real media will cover us, so we'll become our own media. I need media. Anyone? Anyone? snore......

      WHY? He IS Media. After all he lied to the lemmings about a legitimate film crew asking to film trial. It was HIM. Perhaps he's lying about this conversation with someone at the AP Press too.
      Because he didn't specifically say he spoke to an AP reporter, just a "Reporter." He claims he is...so...there ya go...It is my opinion that Windsor just lied to Connie about WHO this "Reporter" was. And that would mean, he watched himself shake his own head, when talking to himself about it while gazing at himself in some reflection. Mirror? Computer screen? Microwave? Whatever. (The use of "She" to me, is still his alter ego)

      Delete
    3. You mean the magic computer screen which makes his face look red except for the "tanning-goggles" area around his eyes?

      Delete
    4. I'm sure at one point he planned an exposé on any media outlet that passed on covering the Windsor saga. Then that turned out to be all of them.

      Delete
  23. Where's Vic been? He hasn't uttered a peep on Windsor's conundrum in a while.
    Vic is far more entertaining and interesting than MunchenMaryD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I checked on Vic, I was afraid he might have been institutionalized or something. But, no. He's been busy everywhere except following Bill. There was open mike night at Weedman's, Vic practiced pagan preaching. He took a trip to Central Park in NYC, was almost trampled by "Catholic pilgrams" and he's selling fruit trees. He took up organic farming to get away from despair. He has quite the long winded opinion about the Catholic church and birth control. It was a confusing post, so he cleared it up with this:

      "Not sure people got my last point. The papal edict against birth control has to assume a gay and lesbian reality. Otherwise it makes no sense. Do you understand this mechanics?"

      Delete
    2. Whew! Thank you! I'm glad Vic is staying busy!

      Delete
    3. I was worried and lit a candle for him.

      Delete
    4. Thank you. He really is one of the good lemmings, he's just trying to make the world a better place. And we can never have enough fruit trees.

      Delete
    5. I can't help myself! I am fond of some of them, I own it. I still follow MaryB, I worry about Vic, I even like RI Rebecca, she makes me laugh.
      My fondness for them makes me detest Windsor even more for the way he uses and manipulates them. Windsor is a shitty person for preying on them and others less fortunate and having a hard time in life. And there's Windsor laid up in the lap of luxury whining to people that barely have housing & food.

      Delete
  24. More like called up...by Putin to Syria.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Things should get pretty interesting when Windsor breaks his silence about the great slam dunk brief. I'm hopeful there will be some "quaking" going on but it won't be in boots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Windsor already received info about his brief. He's just not telling yet.

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

      Delete
    3. Yup. I think so too. My first thought after reading the post about MT mafia was that the slam dunk brief must not be such a miracle. Maybe Windsor is holding out on Snoozie because she might not keep it a secret.

      Delete
    4. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 7, 2015 at 9:11 PM

      I agree Ida. He knows, he's just not saying. Maybe he isn't telling her because if she knew the truth prior to all her help, surely she might get a tad bit irked. Whatever. Once upon a time she claimed she left GRIP/LA because she and others noticed how he lies among other things, but she went back.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow! The washed up whore just can't stop herself can she?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope she washed up!

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

      Delete
    3. Almost as interesting as your Willy getting arrested in the elevator in Ellis County.
      Or Idaho.
      #GameEnjoyment
      Hahahahaha

      Delete
    4. LOL@Anon8:31 - that mugshot of Billy crying with his nose all red and tears welling up in his red eyes ... is my all time Fav pic of him !

      Delete
    5. Susan, What I do know is a fact is that Bill is definitely in debt for $330,000 to me. How's that for you. What else is reality is the criminal charges against him, the Criminal investigation into his attorney for the Trademark Piccone, and the fact that windsor and his entire co-horts to include yourself are under the watchful eye of some agencies for taking steps to hold Citizen Grand Juries on Talkshow. That call from the FBI to Bill was again reality. It's a serious thing when you send letters telling sitting politicians that they will be tried for Treason if they don't make laws to support wha you want. So think again how real this is or isn't. One for sure it's not a game. BTW if your his legal guru helper you completely suck at it. Bill might had been able to get admitted to law school and your no better. Your filings are Hopes and Dreams as you could put it. Full of conspiracy and mistakes taking rules and case law out of context. Not following proper filing procedures and such. That too is reality not a game. The day is coming soon when there won't be anything more to file in court. Maybe you should make plans to visit Montana using Alcatraz Tickets. Oh wait that went belly up and was sold off too. Shucks!

      Delete
    6. Yup, she should make plans to visit Montana in the dead of winter. Windsor's new post includes an awfully tempting incentive to be a court watcher. Maybe if she gets there early enough she get an autographed photo and be 2nd chair. Just shove the public defender over.

      "It will be exciting. You are encouraged to come to Missoula Montana for the trial. There will be autographed William M. Windsor Wanted Posters for all who attend. And it will be history in the making."

      Delete
    7. You know I have seen the last post about how to get a hold of him. I have to say that I can't remember anyone that ever really got help. He might had filmed people and listened to hours of their cases but what has he actually done other than get donations from them so that he could just drive around and film and eat pizzas and burgers on the road while creating his database of copyright photos. What has he done for anyones case? If there is proof that he was actually able to change the direction or be an influence for one case i would like to know and I stand corrected.

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

      Delete
    9. @ Sean: Windsor doesn't say he's going to help anyone. He says he will "try to help" and he will "respond" to people whenever he's ready. Implied assistance is the hook. Clearly, he's soliciting personal information for his data base.

      "If you are a victim of government corruption, judicial corruption, or law enforcement corruption, please do contact Bill Windsor so you get added to his database of contacts to try to help."

      "I'm saving all of these as I am saving hundreds of emails and Facebook messages from people looking for help. Once my criminal charges are dismissed or I am found not guilty, I will be able to respond."

      "I do receive email at bill@billwindsor .com and windsorinmontana@yahoo .com. I read short emails and skim long ones. There are a LOT of them. I may quickly respond if I am not working on a project at that moment, but I usually drag those looking for help or advice into a folder. I will respond to those when I can."

      "Please provide as much information as you can, and absolutely include your name, address, email, phone, and Facebook page. I won't respond personally without this information."

      Delete
    10. Exactly, Ida. Windsor knows these folks are hurting and won't worry about privacy agreements and such, and if they do want some sort of guarantee, they can go pound sand. Windsor says he's busy trying to get into prison... er.... trying to avoid prison. He's saying they're lucky he pays them any attention at all. So don't worry about LifeLock, just send your data to Bill.

      Delete
    11. I call flat out BillSchit. Windsor can barely get 15 likes on his Facebook shizz.
      But, he's overrun with calls, texts and emails? Pffffft!
      I can post a pic of myself, my kid(s), or post a a real life, everyday funny happening in my family life and get 50+ likes & comments in less than an hour. So can every other average Facebook user. Windsor's Facebook (lifeline, DearDiary, hate spew) is even below average.
      As we say in Texas, "bless his heart", that's nice code for "you doofus, you just suck". Facebook that.

      Delete
    12. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM

      I just wonder how many of his "help me" emails are from a Nigerian prince needing help claiming some money.

      Delete
    13. Susie LOVES her dead men walking and with her money drying up she might need a place to stay real soon. A jail cell will solve both problems. By all means, let her continue to aid and abet!

      Delete
  28. After much debate, it has been decided that Sharon's (Susan) comments will be allowed to post. She's doing such a good job of showing how pathetic her life is, why not get some laughs out of it. It'll be extra fun to look back after she finds out Windsor is still lying to her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 7, 2015 at 8:08 PM

      I always get a kick out of her comments. It's hilarious watching her fight so hard to save Willy so he can continue to chase people here. Her obsession with strangers on a blog is quite comical to me. Sad but funny.

      Delete
    2. Your decision admin. Matters not to me. Sharon is just another gnat, a skanky one, but a gnat regardless.
      Sharon's past spews are so funny! She's never right & gets used over & over, and begging for more Willy whoppers.
      Let her roll. Between Windsor's sports analogies, the window lickers jockeying for their tales of woe and Sharon prattling? Cheap entertainment.
      ~thank you Admin1~

      Delete
    3. Ha! I was typing at same time RC3! I agree with you!

      Delete
    4. Seems she enjoys being used by men. It's like she's proud to be a doormat for worthless men. She's been doing it since she hit puberty.

      Delete
    5. Can Grammar Nazis post too?

      Delete
    6. Nope. You want to correct grammar, get a job teaching English.

      Delete
  29. I think that's a stellar policy change, Admin. I do understand your reluctance. She basically comes here to call us names. We can weather that, though, and it will be spectacular seeing her reaction to Jennifer Clark's winning the Battle of the Briefs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Comments under Windsor's post about the judge with tough words are interesting. The men are supportive of the judge. The women, not so much. The female lemmings use the woman's abuse as rationale for why she shouldn't be punished for ignoring a subpoena. But, maybe they are just blasting the judge because that's what they think they are supposed to do. Why else would Windsor post that story?

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, completely. But, my opinion on the matter wasn't the point. The split by gender is interesting. I think you should make that exact statement on Windsor's FB page for the benefit of the female lemmings.

      Delete
    2. @ Ida? No one will comment anything of the sort. Should they dare? Their comment will be deleted, but only after much insulting. Windsor's Facebook page, posts and comments are one way, agreeing with him. Anything other lapping up BillSchit, those with their own opinions/views are labeled haters, 'Joeys' and corrupt, then a hate campaign complete with their domain name website is created and stalking of those individuals begins.
      This is Windsor's history, repeated over and over.
      Why would anyone bother? After so many years, it's the Windsor way.

      Delete
    3. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 8, 2015 at 8:07 AM

      "The girl that refused to show for the trial got exactly what she deserved."

      Now that it rich. Coming from a vexi whose sole purpose is looking for ways to help someone else avoid showing up at anything court ordered. Perhaps if this woman would have pulled a "Windsor" and appealed the hearing, she wouldn't be in trouble. This is what the vexi game teaches.

      If you don't want to follow court orders, just appeal them. Hell, appeal them before the order. That way, you can use the stall either way in the future. You can claim the court "Could have" continued as the appeal doesn't "stay" the hearing, or you can claim "they violated your rights because it was stayed pending appeal." Either way, in the vexi world they will argue for the sake of arguing. Bury the issue under so much paperwork it's almost unrecognizable.

      The one statute for Windsor that keeps getting pushed back under the rug was the only one that matters. No matter how many others Windsnooze throws out. Smoke and mirrors v facts.

      (3) 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

      Delete
    4. Bwahahahahahaha!
      Windsor didn't show in Texas or Montana.
      Irony much?
      Does Windsor even read the news links he posts? Derrrrrrr
      And yes, Ida, you're right about the men's & women's comments, I noticed same thing.

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

      Delete
    6. And? This is relevant to Windsor's woes how?
      Other than he failed to appear.

      Delete
    7. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 8, 2015 at 9:08 PM

      Yes Sharon, I know, that's what game you would like to play, but No. You're wrong. You can't pick and choose the statutes and portions that you want to twist. That's not how it works. That is all.

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

      Delete
  32. Windsor--"I did get confirmation that the Clerk of the Court received the filing by email on October 6 and by courier on October 7. I sent one correction on a missing open quote mark by email, and I received confirmation that it was sent to Judge James A. Haynes."

    This sounds like more Windsor semantics to me. Was the "Confirmation" a note from the clerk that said he was already told his filings would no longer be submitted? He abused the process previously? Therefore to protect the court from Windsor's abuses and frivolous, fanciful and repetitive malarkey filings, he lost that privilege? And any further submissions would be sent to the Judge for contempt? Just wondering....
    Anything is possible as Windsor appears incapable of writing things that are as they truly are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary D Hell-gate - you've been thru a living hell!

      (And, poor Mary has been has been living thru "Tick-Gate" ) Lol !

      Delete
  33. Has anyone noticed that Windbag has edited his current post seven times since posting it 12 hrs ago, including editing it a hour ago?
    If you look at
    Edit History ... you can see the 7 edits, wondering what he is editing, deleting, adding to the post?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Windsor does that with his own life's history, why would Facebook be any different?

      Delete
    2. Good point SFW - Ha !

      Delete
  34. Oh look! Windsor's ex-cell mate in ID, the coauthor of 'Bob Barker & Me', came to call on Windsor's page. He's quite a character. I suspect his jail time had something to do with running over 2 pedestrians while he was DUI.

    Joshewuh Hooker Looks the same as the cell always did. Haha

    http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/07/02/11984927/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State is infringing upon his Constitutional right to run people over. Slam dunk.

      Delete
    2. I wonder how Joshewuh's boyfriend likes Windsor, probably thinks he some freaky, old, rich queen.

      Delete
    3. Yellow? Described not only the Mustang, but his cowardice by leaving the scene.
      Joshua is a real caring person, huh? Hit 2 people with his car & zipped on off, while drunk. Why is Joshua bawling in his mugshot? He didn't get hit by a car. Windsor can pick some winners.

      Delete
  35. Windsor sure did PTFD on his slam dunk, huh?
    What's up with that?

    Doing a bit of reading on the REAL Dr Susan Harbison. She's very accomplished and receives a lot of recognition. No wonder Sharon chose to pose as her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, where's Windsor's big press release about the charges being dismissed? He did say he expected the judge to notify him by Friday that the charges were dismissed... it's Friday, Billy !! Lol

      Delete
    2. Sensationalist gloating and megalomania are Windsor's genre. Reality and the truth ARE NOT his genre. Windsor being truthful is like when Paul Anka covered "Black Hole Sun." (he really did -- look it up)

      Delete
    3. Frank Lee BillsadickOctober 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM

      He's still waiting. Obviously trolling this blog, in between filing more frivolous court crap....

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm looking forward to your update on when the ACLU is going to get involved.

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

      Delete
    3. Blah blah blah. More Sharon Galloway bullshit.

      Delete
    4. Right. A hideously unsuccessful attorney isn't going to tell us when the successful attorneys will do something. I think we'll be okay, Snoozan. I only hope when you're wrong again it will shame to into disappearing for a bit.

      Delete
    5. ^^^^ Never going to happen. That's like saying you hope a heroin addict sobers up because they are ashamed they got caught turning tricks. Sharon should be able to relate to that analogy.

      Delete
    6. "Windsor will likely inform his followers"

      Lol, you mean all 4 of his followers as in Marty Prehn, MaryD, Rebecca and Cruz?

      Delete