Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

William M Windsor's 'How To' Guide to Cyberstalking

Is William M Windsor coming out of the closet? The “Cyberstalker” closet.
The face of a completely obsessed and unstable Cyberstalker.


Windsor has claimed that Cyberstalkers are being paid by the Government. Well, he is on social security isn't he? Is he finally admitting that Lawless America is an “Organization” of mentally ill, obsessed, unstable people--lead by a Man who's being paid by the Government to Cyberstalk? 

Lets take a look shall we? 


Looking for personal information? Social Security numbers? Drivers license information? 

How obsessed IS William M Windsor? Leader of “Lawless America?” 

WOW! Increasing the reward? Lets see, first it was $1000, then $5000 then $10,000!! Just how mentally ill and obsessed does someone have to be, to offer to pay 10K for names? 

And what will he do with that information once he obtains it? And is the information even reliable? Well, Ppfffttt who cares right? He's got names, that's all that matters. Commence domain hoarding!! Slander, defamatory content, and libel “galore.” 
*note that below is a screenshot of just 1 of 93 pages of many judges' domain names purchased by Windsor!  93!  Click and get a good view of all of it*

 The complete “How To” in Windsor's own words. Cyberstalking By William M Windsor 101. 


 
Oh nifty. He's got the “Tricks” down pat huh? Awesome. That William M Windsor Cyberstalking 101 Lawless style is sure laid out nice isn't it? Wow. Including the “I believe” excuse too. Sweet! 


Our goal is to blanket the searches for “Corrupt People.” Stated Lawless Cyberstalker in goals, as noted below: (anyone William M Windsor doesn't like, will be targeted, Cyberstalked, and physically stalked under the name of “Lawless America” masquerading as “News.”) 


Government paid “Cyberstalkers” hard at work!! Wow. How does Windsor find the time?

Thank YOU William M Windsor, for explaining how and why YOU Cyberstalk.

However, one of the best, most concise summaries comes from an Anon post made here, at the Back40 pasture, recently.  Thank you, Anon:







178 comments:

  1. "I'll just set up web pages in their names and blast all of the joeys. That'll fix em". Can anyone here name a single Joey that was "fixed" by one of Windsor's web pages? IMO, the only person who got "fixed" was the dumb ass himself. He let himself become totally obsessed with what a few people were saying on a blog. Seems like it was pretty easy for "joeys" to ignore his hate sites but, not so much for him to ignore one blog. You sure taught those evil Joeys a lesson Bill. I promise you Bill, one blog received more page views than all of your websites combined yesterday. Another William Windsor slam dunk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As my 6'7" tall, 13 year old real basketball player son, that can slam dunk easily, would say? #Swoosh
      We certainly chuckled at Tankass's basketball analogies. Kid glanced over Windsor's posts while he was bored while we were traveling home from a scrimmage Sunday afternoon, and he did say "that short, fat old creep "don't even know". Touché, a pffffft from a kid.
      After I read Windsor posting he was going out to eat with a mom and her 12 year old son and Windsor claims that boy is reading his LA .com stuff? Bwahahahahahaha! "He don't even know" again.
      What boy wants to know their mom is going out (to dine) with an old, fat, man? Add in that the boy is going to go with them? Reality check? NONE.
      I doubt any of Windsor's blowharding about his "social engagements" are true, but IF the mom & boy dinner one is true? I do feel sorry for that kid.

      #WindsorDontEvenKnow

      Delete
    2. He doesn't have this or any other social activity.

      Sitting alone in a hotel room drunk and on Facebook...

      #CowboyStudLife

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

      Delete
    4. http://tinypic.com/r/s6lulv/8

      Delete
    5. Now THAT is funny!

      Delete
    6. Oh, and Snoozie: you can thank Windsor for exposing children to Windsor's BS and the internet crap. It's kind of hard to hide it all from a smart young man when his mother is being physically stalked at home in a town of only 1,000 people. Not to mention courts dates and reams and reams of paper that just showed up at the house. You think the better way to handle it is lie to the kid or pretend it didn't all happen?

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

      Delete
    8. Yep, you are an olympic conclusion jumper. How do YOU know SFW did not contact LE? And, show me where exactly where I said I was not around last year - that is something you imagined. How do YOU know that I wasn't in court for each and every hearing? Your assumptions and imaginations make you look even that much more foolish.

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

      Delete
    10. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 13, 2015 at 3:57 PM

      I'll vouche for Ida. She's been here much longer than you Susan. And the absolute stupidity you just displayed in that comment is amazing. Your entire knowledge of what's really gone on here is based on the info you receive from a prover liar. Once again, you've shown just how absolutely clueless you are. You obsession with your vendetta against this blog as blinded you of any common sense you might have once possessed. What an idiot. Now get back to me when Windsor's charges are dismissed. Until then, your comments are the pointless ramblings of a bitter, shunned, fool!

      Delete
    11. What? You think anybody can just run out and have another person "charged" with something? That only happens in Windsor's head. Maybe you should read up on TX stalking laws, PO's and procedures. Just because YOU haven't seen "evidence" doesn't mean there isn't any.

      I don't care what you buy or don't buy. What YOU think I know or don't know is not going to change facts and is, in fact, completely irrelevant to any part of my life. You made a malicious attack and defamatory remark. I took exception to your judgements. If you aren't "buying" that you could be wrong on all counts, then go ahead, use that fantastic imagination you have, imagine away...

      Delete
    12. @ RCIII - Thank you.

      Delete
    13. And Susan, either you lie quite frequently or I've highly overrated your intelligence.

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

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

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

      Delete
    17. You must have missed that chapter in the Windsor "saga". It's too late now, he deleted all mention of his TX stalking adventures.

      Point is, Windsor's was stalking SFW and several other people. He publicly posted all about his trips to Kemp, Red Oak, Waxahachie, Midlothian and Weatherford, TX. He named each person he was stalking. Whether or not any one of the stalking victims contacted LE is irrelevant to what Windsor did and the impact he had on those people. He deliberately interfered with the lives of people he knew absolutely nothing about, based only on what people like you told him.

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

      Delete
    19. Huh, now that I think about it - how do YOU know reports to LE in Ellis County didn't make it all the way to Patrick Wilson's office? Maybe that's why Wilson put so much effort into Windsor's arrest.

      Delete
    20. There you go with assumptions and that big wide brush again. When did two wrongs ever make anything right? How do you know the collective "you" in your statement included the people Windsor stalked? How do you know that anyone posting on this blog participated in that activity? And, Windsor publicly discussed those issues in the scope of his "business", he made himself a target.

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

      Delete
    22. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 13, 2015 at 5:24 PM

      There is a LOT Susan doesn't know, but that really doesn't make a difference. She's going to present herself as an expert in any topic you bring up. And her expert opinion will be in contrast to any other commenter on this blog. That's her game. She's here for no other reason than to "stir the shit" so to speak. It's what internet trolls do. She does the same thing on any site she visits. IMO. It's just a desperate attempt to interact with anyone.

      Delete
    23. RCIII, I think you are right. This is a game to interact with anyone that will engage. And her behavior is idiotic. I just couldn't stand her throwing rocks at SFW.

      I'm off to do something much more constructive and productive!

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

      Delete
    25. Sharon has made herself a judge and jury. She thinks she can decide when a criminal is justified to break the law, and she blames the victims. Why? This is how she made money from men in the bars. She would manipulate them into fights just like this. We didn't feed her ego or her wallet. Of course if she stood in court, she would be schooled. Even if your name was not SVG, and it is, you still don't have the guts to stand up, coward.

      Delete
    26. You, Sharon Galloway, are such a goofy cunt that you chose to whore through life and then you've used #someone else's name/identity.
      #POSING as another individual, hoping that Windsor doesn't turn on you, as you've assisted him do to others? That's a #COWARD.
      You're such a pussy ass bitch you impersonate, use another individual's name/identity, even to Windsor. Why? Because, Sharon, you know what he'll do to anyone, complete strangers and you're scared.
      When Windsor chose to file suit on me? Then used his Facebook to announce my husband & my sons' father's death, even before his body had been recovered? Windsor involved not only my entire family, but all of our friends that love us and our community. And, yes, the police department here in town and Kaufman County are aware of all of Windsor's stalking. Just like you? I believe, without any doubt, that Windsor is a cowardly, pussy ass bitch. But, at least Windsor doesn't #POSE as someone else, or impersonate, use someone else's name/identity.
      I, and everyone in the courtroom, courthouse saw him run for the men's room to hide "in fear" at the Ellis County, Texas Courthouse. It was very funny. Windsor isn't such a badass in person, in the daylight, when he has to look up at the women and the teenaged sons of a dead man, that he'd attacked online. I'd never thought of another human to be so shitty until I became aware of Windsor, but you're close.
      When Windsor realizes how you've fucked him over? And he realizes you ARE Sharon Galloway? You'll get a dose of the Windsor hatred that no one else ever has before. Windsor may be goofy, but he isn't so stupid to believe you're the person you've #POSED as, Sharon. That part of the 'game' is over.
      Own your own shit, Sharon, ever to Windsor, just own it, show that #Integrity you claimed to have.

      Bwahahahahahahahahaha


      Kellie McDougald

      Delete
    27. Ok Susan, when you copy/paste your idiocy, it will be removed. If your mental capacity has declined so far you can't think of something new, it's time to take your meds and log off.

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

      Delete
    29. Sharon, that poses as another person, musta been absent or forgotten the day in early July 2014, that the police chief in my town personally invited Windsor to come back to Kemp and visit the police department. Sharon participated on that comment thread. I haven't forgotten, neither has law enforcement here. They, I and numerous others have that comment thread screen shot, along with many other of Windsor's own Facebook posts about his trips to my hometown and my husband's death. Windsor specifically asked for no comments on his post delightedly announcing Darin's death and Sharon was the very first to comment, too, with "SemperFi Devil Dog, RIP".
      After Windsor's last trip to Kemp, that wasn't very pleasant for him, that he neglected to brag about, he then went to some town more than 65 miles away, Middleothian (that I've never been even been to) in another county, Ellis, to attempt to make a complaint about me. Ha! Law enforcement there not only contacted the police chief here, then they informed Windsor he'd need to make a complaint either in the city of my residence or his, if I'd done anything to him. I'd never taken one step toward Windsor, ever and never will, he isn't worthy.
      And, my sons live here, you dipshit, Sharon, duh. They know exactly what has gone on. You obviously know nothing about living with or raising teenagers to be critiquing anyone else. Hahahaha! Mine sons are both honor students, mature, and very responsible. My sons are also very protective of our home, me, each other and their entire family from an old creepy man, Windsor, that would circle our home attempting taking photos or videos with cameras. That's just freaky weird, especially since Windsor claimed to be so "in fear" of me. Pffffft.
      Just like this blog post pointed out, Windsor has a self documented tour of himself stalking numerous people from Mississippi, to Texas, to Missouri, to Montana.

      Own your own shit, Sharon.


      Delete
    30. Oh, but everyone else is obligated to use their real name? Please STFU! about people that post under screen names or anonymous. Nobody else here is hiding behind the name of a real person, a real person that could be injured by the commentary YOU post.

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

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

      Delete
    33. Oh yeah, same person wrote this is commenting as Susan.

      Sharon Galloway has left a new comment on the post "Sharon Galloway Out Into The Light":

      Hello people, I was alerted by the person you call "Susan" last night that you all have me confused with her.
      I spoke with Bill Windsor one time a couple of years ago, and decided that what he is or was, doing is not of any interest to me.
      The only reason I spoke with him is because he attacked a friend of mine and I wanted to see what was up . It doesnt really matter what I personally think of Bill Windsor, but the fact that I spoke with him once and never again, should give you a clue.
      I dont know why you would have me investigated, or why you have attached me to Bill Windsor because, if you have as much information as you think you have about me, you would see that I do not converse, or "work" with him. I am Maryland based only. I work with two other people, only. Bill is not one of them.
      I see that you have some of my photos on your blog, but you have the wrong person.
      The person you call "Susan" called me to let me know you were engaging in language that could be construed as malicious and defamatory, and told me the link to this blog. That was our first conversation.
      I don't hide, I'm out there, I have no reason to pretend to be someone else.
      But I am not who you think I am.
      I am asking for you to stop because I am not the person you think I am.
      I never heard of you before this. I have no reason to communicate with you.
      Please dont be defensive, and pretend that this message is a scam. It is not.
      Stop your discussion of me now.

      Anon calling it SharonShit

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

      Delete
  2. Excellent article.

    Perhaps you can do Jen Clark a solid and just add "Exhibit A" to the top?

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL!! Perfect.

    I shall claim I am being viciously "Cyberstalked," so I can Cyberstalk but claim it's for "News" purposes, or for my "Movie," or for a "TV" show. If I say I'm the victim, so I can "Expose" those people, then I'll sue them, so it's now in "Court documents" so my lie is now backed up with a court record.

    Get his foot in the court door, then blast away. Endless, frivolous, meritless attacks on anyone and everyone. Cyberstalking 101 must lead to "Stalking Through The Courts". Must be 101 (b)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lemmings can't take the course if 1st Grade Spelling and Grammar are the prerequisites...

      Delete
    2. I didn't know how to change the authored by at the bottom of the post, but this was submitted by one of the Admin Crew.
      Wild applause! Standing O! Bravo! I ❥ our crew!

      Everyone wave~~~

      ℗ ♛ ❥

      Delete
    3. Oh? And readership in Montana, South and North Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho has literally skyrocketed in the last month. Yesterday's stats were huge!

      Thank you all!
      ~Luff your guts~

      Delete
  4. We're feeling so #fresh! Love the article, on point!
    Let's all dance!
    We're hitting the #Quan this morning, c'mon and join!

    http://youtu.be/GpJJqjyH1o0

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 13, 2015 at 9:24 AM

    "It's worth a shot helping some folks down on their luck?" What is this prick smoking? He's the only one down on his luck and the only thing his frivolous suits were geared for was helping HIM!

    What has Windsor ever done for anyone other than himself? The youtube videos are promoting him. They are paying him. His websites? Also only for him. William M Windsor this, and William M Windsor that. If you haven't seen what's been done to William M Windsor go read William M Windsor's articles about how William M Windsor claims all kinds of unverified, unsubstantiated, vindictive crap on William M Windsor's Lawless America dot con, or any of the other William M Windsor dot cons that he set up to promote William M Windsor.

    Everything is geared for self promotion. Everything. Even the stories from others is promoting him. Not them, not their complaints, and not their lack of credibility. Just him claiming "Corruption" at every turn using them to say "See, there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of butthurt people just like me, that's why I created Lawless America." Me, me, me.

    Pretty well laid out that HE is a Cyberstalker, and a Stalker. His own words will bite him in the ass every time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That whole veiled ACLU threat had to be turned into an "aw shucks, I was only kidding" moment when he realized that anyone in the DA's office could drop a dime and verify his crap.

    Mail delivery was the first indication...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They could also contact his mail forwarding service at his fake address in South Dakota to see if they actually forwarded anything from the ACLU. Oh, and if he wants to claim that he has a "Friend" in SD who gets his mail, and they are the ones who told him that the ACLU sent something, the fake PO Box address people would still know what he received there.

      He's not bright. He doesn't think his posts through. They are designed to put on a show for the lemmings, but what they actually do is show how he is not credible. He will say and do anything in a dishonest way. He can try to claim he wasn't serious, but his audience that he promotes to believes his every word. That is the main audience for him. Those are his supporters.

      Delete
  7. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM

    And....TickyD killed the "Cyberstalker" creepy old man's FB friend request thread. Brought it completely away from fake FB profiles (which everyone gets but not for the reason's Windsor needs to promote) and took it full circle back to....LYMES. Yep, no matter what, who, why, where or how, it's just GOT to revert back to Munchie and her tick circus.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment was left on a previous post just now. I'll leave it here for discussion, or amusement. Whatever.

    Sharon Galloway has left a new comment on the post "Sharon Galloway Out Into The Light":

    Hello people, I was alerted by the person you call "Susan" last night that you all have me confused with her.
    I spoke with Bill Windsor one time a couple of years ago, and decided that what he is or was, doing is not of any interest to me.
    The only reason I spoke with him is because he attacked a friend of mine and I wanted to see what was up . It doesnt really matter what I personally think of Bill Windsor, but the fact that I spoke with him once and never again, should give you a clue.
    I dont know why you would have me investigated, or why you have attached me to Bill Windsor because, if you have as much information as you think you have about me, you would see that I do not converse, or "work" with him. I am Maryland based only. I work with two other people, only. Bill is not one of them.
    I see that you have some of my photos on your blog, but you have the wrong person.
    The person you call "Susan" called me to let me know you were engaging in language that could be construed as malicious and defamatory, and told me the link to this blog. That was our first conversation.
    I dont hide, Im out there, I have no reason to pretend to be someone else.
    But I am not who you think I am.
    I am asking for you to stop because I am not the person you think I am.
    I never heard of you before this. I have no reason to communicate with you.
    Please dont be defensive,and pretend that this message is a scam. It is not.
    Stop your discussion of me now.

    Post a comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. Snoozie doesn't like that shoe on the other foot. It's not like she didn't initiate and incite that kind of behavior. She NEVER, EVER made malicious personal attacks and defamed people she doesn't have a clue about.

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

      Delete
    3. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 13, 2015 at 12:58 PM

      Wow! Isn't this interesting. From the message above, "Sharon" claims she only spoke to Windsor once. Well then WHY were she and George sporting a "Lawless America" banner on the back of their van? Why were they supporting Jeff Baron who wanted Windsor to buy Judge Carrolls domain name? Why did "Susan" claim that she had someone on the "inside" in DC, when George was at DC? George was also on numerous talkshoes prior to the "movie" caper. No, if she claims she only "Works" with two guys, that is George and Toilet bowl boy, there were far too many conversations between Windsor and McDermott for "Sharon's" little "I only talked to him once" comment.

      Seems like there are some "things" that just don't add up in "Sharon's" post.

      Delete
    4. Coward-Snooze@12:47 -
      To quote you, it appears Ida's comment ...
      " sailed right over your head"

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

      Delete
    6. It's a diversion attempt from two things. The failed brief that will prevent Windsor from arguing the TOP validity during trial. And her identity because she knows after he figures out the big slam dunk was a failure, he's going to turn on her.

      Delete
    7. Save the crap Sharon. Posting all the info about you recently must have you real scared. Problem is, dummy, that your writing and face is all over the internet. We know you. And we know that SVG is NOT a nice person. She's the same nasty creepy person that posts here. What's fun darling, is that you were never so scared before as to pretend to contact someone even though we outted you a couple years ago. And you know you can't hide your involvement with Cox or Windsor pre-Lawless America. We have evidence of both.

      Delete
    8. You know what this is? I called the coward Sharon V. Galloway out. And she is too chicken shit to appear in court in defense of Bill. After years of being around his cohorts online and offline and others of his ilk, she doesn't have the guts to stand in court. She can post here day and night but she doesn't have the guts to stand up in the light and argue this. That is why after several years of us knowing who she is but keeping silent, and then dropping hints, and then naming her---only know is she denying it. BUT read above, she doesn't want to either deny or confirm because she doesn't want to give us that satisfaction, but more so like she always said she has something to lose by going public. It's not that hard. Windsor knows who you are and where you are. He can call you as a witness and pay for you to be there in your head wrap and sunglasses. But you are the biggest fatttest piece of walking talking chicken Billshit I've ever seen, Sharon.

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

      Delete
    10. Well, none of his defenses could be strengthened by a witness. I'll agree with that, but just he doesn't really have any defenses. The closest he's come to an actual defense is claiming he never tweeted SB's name and never used it on YouTube. If those claims weren't proven to be lies several times each, he might have something there.

      All Windsor's hopes are in his pre-trial maneuvers. Obvious. Windsor doesn't want to have to meet Jennifer Clark in front of a jury. Just watch his reaction when he discovers that's exactly what is going to happen and his bag of tricks to prevent it is empty.

      Delete
    11. His case can't be strengthened, but that is not the point Sharon. You don't have the guts to be there. Obviously you feel the need to defend him here, but you don't have the guts to tell the court in person. You have repeatedly claimed we are stalkers so go be a character witness and testify to what you claim you have witnessed. You won't have a choice if Windsor or the Feds call you. The longer you help him, the more likely that will happen. Oh and Sharon, your soda and tobacco habit aren't helping you as much as you think they are.

      Delete
    12. Robert Cookout IIIOctober 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM

      She is only defending Windsor here because she wants to irritate people. As long as she gets the feeling she managed to upset someone, she's giddy. It's much easier to laugh at her pathetic obsession instead of putting any effort into pointing out how idiotic most of her positions are.

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

      Delete
    14. So Susan, are you now claiming Boushie isn't a GENII? Wouldn't that kinda shoot down most of Windsor's claims?

      Delete
    15. Wow. Wait. Hold up. Hasn't Bill been saying that we and SB are part of a conspiracy to stalk him and stop the movie? I'm pretty sure that's what Windsor's defense has been all this time. So which part are you having trouble with: listening to what Windsor is saying or are you saying that you don't believe there is a conspiracy after all? :)

      Delete
    16. HAHA Anon@7:23 ... nailed her again ! Poor Sharon, she's having a bad day on the blog, today HAHA !

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

      Delete
    18. Identity thief 8:01- So Windsor's criminal charges aren't for violating a TOP that was granted to Boushie? So what exactly are you trying to claim the charges are for? Granted, at this point Boushie has no real role in the prosecution but it's quite a stretch to say the charges aren't relative to him.

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

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

      Delete
    21. Identity thief 8:09- the problem both you and Windsor have is really quite simple. Your trying to argue your issues in the wrong venue. If Windsor had handled his appeals properly, he wouldn't be facing criminal charges now. He let his arrogance and disdain for the courts ruin his best chance at getting the TOP vacated. Not only that, he could have easily just waited until the TOP hearing and made his arguments there.

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

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

      Delete
    24. Identity thief 8:38- I'm afraid Windsor isn't going to be allowed to argue that point if a trial is held. I'll agree that most here don't have an understanding of how trials and pre trial motions work. That being said, some do. I read previous comments by you that said the prosecutions brief had a fatal flaw. I think you and Windsor may just be a little over confident in that. You never acknowledged that the judge has to determine if the brief does indeed contain that flaw. Windsor's brief failed to make that case in my opinion. You can lash out at me or call me stupid but, you obviously have no real experience in dealing with criminal law and the judges that interpret it. You really have no basis for your absolute confidence (arrogance) regarding the judges decision on that issue. That's exactly how your inexperience shows. Anyone with half a clue as to how things really work would just quietly file the necessary documents and remain quiet. Your bravado exposes your real unsureness about the issue. Honestly, you really aren't sure put you're putting on an act for the commenters here.

      Delete
    25. Identity thief- I sure hope you task master has a contingency plan for the possibility the charges aren't dropped. Crying corruption isn't going to carry much weight with a jury.

      Delete
    26. I think I might have invented a new word in that long winded comment.

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

      Delete
    28. I don't care if there is a new word or not, the comment was fabulous!!

      Delete
    29. Oh geeze, the comment @ 8:51 is fabulous. Skipping Snooozie's drivel. I've had enough of that for today.

      Delete
    30. Identity thief, I'll correct you one last time, after that I'll be forced to ask for a consulting fee. You are confident in YOUR interpretation of the law. I'm not going to bother trying to explain where the flaw lies in that interpretation because you really don't seem to have a very good grasp of criminal law. You'll receive your lesson soon enough I'm afraid. You must also realize that you can't argue judicial incompetence just because a judge doesn't agree with your interpretation. I'm fully aware that people like you can't accept that they might have a misinterpretation but it's easy for you to feel that way. You are just a person with Internet access that can look up statutes. If you're wrong, it really doesn't matter because it's not your legal fight. Instead of filling your master with your own confidence (however misguided), you should have maybe sought another opinion of your interpretation. Even the most skilled attorneys can make mistakes, so the odds of someone with no legal experience making a mistake are much higher. No competent attorney would ever let themselves become blinded by their own arrogance. You have proven you're a rank amateur with a statement like you just made.

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

      Delete
    32. If you feel pointing out what you really are as opposed to what you try to act like on here is a personal attack, so be it. Weren't you the poster that was trying to place a bet on what decision the judge would make? Like I said, rank amateur. One of the first things you learn in law school is to accept you're at the mercy of others. The second thing you learn is not to become overconfident I'm your own abilities. You've obviously learned neither of these things. Which law school neglected to teach you these two very important things?

      Delete
    33. How is it a personal attack, Sharon? You've spent twelve hours claiming you are not you, you are some Susan.
      Doh!
      I'm not the one you've been commenting with, either.

      Identify me as Laughing At Sharon Again

      Delete
    34. And let me add- I don't really care who you are identity thief. I don't need to know who you are to identify what you are. You make it much too easy.

      Delete
    35. "...I don't need to know who you are to identify what you are. You make it much too easy."

      Touche.

      Delete
    36. Boushie isn't relevant to Windsor's criminal charges? Relevant to why Windsor is wearing a GPS tracking device?
      The looney bird fell out of the tree and hit every branch on the way down, making her more stupid.

      Laughing at Sharon Again

      Delete
    37. 1. You have no idea who I am.
      2. I asked you to discuss the question of law at issue here. In response, you went off on a personal attack. That tells me SO MUCH about you.



      Hahahahaha
      I'm ROTFL and agree with you Laughing at Sharon Again

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

      Delete
    39. My bet is, it was you. But, geeze just let it go. Several people have pointed out that Windsor's approach was bassackwards, Clark's brief hit a home run and Windsor's doesn't fly. But none of us will know anything until there is something to know. If the charges are dismissed, either completely or in part, you can come back and say "I told you so". But until there is resolution, STFU already, you can't change anyone's mind with your drivel.

      Delete
    40. Go look again. I believe the bassackwards approach was pointed out before Clark wrote the brief. I know I pointed it out several weeks ago, if not several months ago.

      Delete
    41. She's interested in the comments about Windsor's brief because it's actually her's. When it fails, it'll be her fault.

      Delete
  9. No one can kill a thread like Mary can when she thinks there's a danger she's being ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well I'm certainly enjoying Motion Watch 2015. One question: WTF is Motion Watch 2015? I remember Sparkle Motion, which was what the dance lady in Donnie Dario doubted Mrs Darko's commitment to sometimes. Is it like that?

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Motion Watch 2015, Joeys.

    Like that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's October. The Smart money in any organization or field is in predicting 2016. As usual the failed salesman is many days late and many dollars short by his own failings.

      Delete
  11. I've a strong suspicion Motion Watch 2015 will soon be labeled void by one William Windsor.

    ReplyDelete
  12. More of Windsor's stolen pants, ACLU, etc. Take that, Joeys. Haha. Windsor's so crafty and funny. Watch the lemmings as they pretend to "get it."

    There's nothing to get. Just some old bully expecting laughs from his hangers on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly what he's been reduced to. A clown entertaining some mental patients.

      Delete
    2. When was he ever more than that?

      Delete
  13. While Windsor waits for his pants and letter to show up, he's rounding up more lemmings. He wrote his opinion about the government denying parental rights, attached a link for his long sad saga, then posted it on all these pages:

    * PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.
    * JUSTICE FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FOR ALL CHILDREN KIDNAPPED THEIR NAMES.
    * The people against forced adoption.
    * Against Psychobabble Diagnosis given out in Family Courts.
    * Stop government abuse of power.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Raising collective hands?
    What does Windsor's stalking saga of violating a protective order and waiting for his criminal trial got to do with denying parental rights?
    Scratching our heads.
    Aha! Reminds us of the Whip whip and Do the Nay Nay!
    Back to dancing!
    1, 2, 3! Whip whip! Everybody now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO, still dancing...

      Clear the dance floor! Time for the TX 2 Step. A lemming posted this one for Windsor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qxd5qfbi4&feature=youtu.be

      Delete
    2. Yeehaw!
      CottenEyed Joe next! We look so cute doing that!
      Sawdust the floor, Miss Ida.

      Delete
  15. "I am CONFIDENT about what the law says and I am confident about what SHOULD happen here."

    Horse shit. Even now you're posting about what will happen WHEN the case is dismissed, not IF. You've acted very confident you know exactly how this judge will rule. You're walking that back now but that won't work. You're going to lose. When that happens just try coming back here and explaining how you actually won. Windsor goes to trial, YOU LOSE. And you'll have lost because of a lack of experience AND education, just as the welcomed comments above have said. That and your being a psychopath very similar to Windsor. Your and his arrogance in not hiring an attorney or two or three will be the reason Windsor fills out his miserable life as a convicted felon. That's not winning, lady. That's losing.

    DC? As in Washington D.C.? Right. You and Windsor have been enormously successful there. Have him go there and try to wander around the halls as a convicted felon. See how that plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lawless America has failed because no matter what Windsor says from time to time, it's about nothing more than Bill Windsor. Bill, when you link people interested in parental rights to your "saga," don't you think they notice that it's 100% about Bill Windsor's butthurtedness and 0% about parental rights?

    And that's if they can get beyond someone claiming to have a "saga." Who does that? Who besides Bill Windsor does that?

    Let me tell you what a saga is, Bill. It's someone who survived a plane crash in the Amazon, both their legs and one arm rotted off but they still managed using their chin and their remaining arm to crawl for eleven years before finally reaching a previously undiscovered tribe and saving them from a powerful lumber company with darts made from poisonous frogs, ONE OF WHICH mistakenly hit him and killed all the flesh in his one remaining arm.

    You, Windsor? Some people disagreed with you on the damn internet and you tried unsuccessfully to sue them. Not a saga.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lawless America failed because it never existed.
      That's sad for all those people that were duped by Bill Windsor.

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

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

      Delete
  17. Ah yes of course. He removed the word "saga" now. He doesn't read these comments. No way.

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

      Delete
    2. Right. Your situation as a washed up nothing, Windor's as the richest guy in line for Turkey loaf, you've big brains. I'm successful in everything except finding anything more entertaining that this at 0500, I've a tiny brain.

      Let me show you how tiny my brain is. Windsor is paying you to push our buttons and identify which posts come from which person. If you can glean from the post who the person actually is, all the better. Not true? Why does it come so close to explaining every aspect of your behavior here?

      What you're doing would be called malpractice if you were an attorney. Windsor's very life is in danger of ending behind bars and you're just a pusher fueling his revenge fantasies.

      Shame on you, lady. Give him his money back.

      Delete
    3. And when he accumulates a mountain of this useless data and hires someone to make sense of it all, they'd better be as unscrupulous as you. They'd better make stuff up or they'll have to tell daddy moneybags in the orange jumpsuit (the one he drew a bullet proof vest on with a laundry marker) that the data will yield nothing useful.

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

      Delete
    5. "The identity of a poster is only important to Windsor if it is an ACTIONABLE post. If it is an ACTIONABLE post, he can subpoena the identity of the writer. If it is not an ACTIONABLE post, he couldn't care less who wrote it."

      That is simply not true. With a little help from someone (maybe you?), Windsor took statements out of context and presented them so that they would appear to be actionable. Then he included people he could not positively identify in his little court games. It is because of people like Windsor, you and whoever helped him, that some don't want to be recognized when they have something to say.

      Delete
    6. I've seen what Windsor calls an ACTIONABLE POST and good luck chasing those as a convicted felon. Nothing you've said refutes your taking his money in an unscrupulous way. One day he'll understand everything he paid you was wasted. He will never successfully sue a "Joey" even with ULTRA-ACTIONABLE posts and you know it. He won't even be able to drag us into court. He's cried wolf too loudly, too many times. He's a legally recognized vexi now.

      "ASSUMING he goes about it correctly next time,"

      Won't make any difference. You know that and you're still taking his money.

      Delete
    7. "The identity of a poster is only important to Windsor if it is an ACTIONABLE post. If it is an ACTIONABLE post, he can subpoena the identity of the writer."

      There aren't any judges left who'll issue that subpoena. Windsor is reduced to the vexi's version of an addict's doctor shopping -- judge shopping. He will find the shelves bare of judges who'll give him the time of day.

      He's done. He's just feeding his revenge fantasies now, and you're helping him do that. For money. You're disgusting.

      Delete
    8. Big difference between being afraid to post with a screen name and simply not being bothered to do it. Anyone can speak about Windsor with impunity now. You're encouraging his fantasy that they cannot. Has the judge dismissed? Surely there's things more deserving of Windsor's attention.

      Delete
    9. "And yet you are afraid to post using a screen name. That sort of undermines your claim that you really believe you can speak about Windsor with impunity."

      Snoozie forgets that Windsor didn't need any old subpoena to add defendants. He sued EVERYBODY his lemmings named. Legal name, screen name, it didn't matter. Nor did it matter that his "intell" was not accurate or that the comments weren't actionable.

      Delete
    10. Yep. She's mad now and making excuses. Her back is to the wall and she's in danger. She knows this. We have her name and so do Windsor and the Feds. She's scared of coming forward no matter what name she uses. This is all to change the subject. If we were wrong then after she allegedly contacted Sharon V Galloway, Sharon could have contacted Windsor and claimed we were stalking an innocent man...but she can't do that because Sharon isn't some innocent bystander, she IS the troll on this blog. She's mad and all she has to fight is to become even more vicious and angry. She can't go forward and her arrogance won't let her quit.

      Delete
  18. Sort of like the aclu the splc has a team of attorneys. They know about Lawless America.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not Friends Of Bill WindsorOctober 14, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    This article fully lays out why Windsor is being tried in front of a Jury. Forget all about Sharon's diversions and semantics. They are completely as irrelevant as she is, was, and always will be.

    Windsor is a Cyber-stalker, a Cyber-terrorist, as well as a physical stalker and paper terrorist as evidenced throughout multiple states and federal courts. It's all perfectly explained in his own words above. He feels he has the right under his first amendment to set up, run, and lead anti government extremists. When he and the others decided they needed a better "Platform" to reach others, they came up with filming. All the youtube videos are evidence of "Cyber-stalking" and "Cyber-terrorism." He filmed people, just like himself, attacking people, harassing them, slandering them, and putting out anything they felt they could.

    Windsor stalked numerous government officials, filmed and loaded them on Youtube. Promising several he would 'Make them famous" by being in his alleged movie. Who cares about the movie? The intent was to Cyber blast the crap out of them with maliciously false and defamatory information. He believes he has this right as "News" or a "Producer/Director." The "Leader of a Revolution." Whatever title he gives himself, he is simply a domestic terrorist who uses whatever medium he deems fit to continue to flame anti government extremists.

    Teaching others how to further "Cyber-stalk" by buying domain names. Making their own articles and videos using his false information. This to me, isn't about one guy, this is about making a ruling to further his Cyber attacks on anyone he chooses and anyone his followers choose. They haven't "Exposed Corruption" they use "Exposing Corruption" as an excuse to "Cyber-stalk" and commit "Cyber-terrorism" because as Windsor wants to claim "That is his property and there isn't a law in this land that can make him take down anything he puts up." Sharon is no different. She and McDermott have the same gig, which to me is why she's so hell bent on trying to find a way out for Windsor, because it will essentially give ALL the Anti Government extremists the same avenue to escape being held accountable.

    Their sole goal is learning how far they can go, to undermine our current laws and destroy our Government in the process. Windsor has proven this in every court ruling he doesn't like. If he can find a way to destroy the current laws that protect citizens, and Government officials, he will set the precedence for other extremist. It's his goal. He has been claiming he will make a "Landmark case" and damnit, he will do whatever it takes to make it happen, and open the gateway for his and others Anti-Government plots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm wondering if Billy has gotten Boushie's arsenal confiscated yet. Does anyone know? After all, Boushie (allegedly) attempted to murder Windsor, and Windsor has the Rorschach Inkblot to prove it.

      Delete
    2. No, that was a Windsor flop.

      Delete
    3. Well, we haven't heard about any "Ruby Ridge" shootouts in Montana, so no, nobody has tried to take his "deadly weapons".

      Delete
    4. But...but...he's got the inkblot, and an affidavit that's signed, sealed, and sworn! Oh well...blame it on judicial corruption.

      Delete
    5. Now that we have it on good authority (allegedly) that Snoozan never lies, I wonder if she thinks that about Windsor?

      Delete
    6. Hahahahaha! railroaded! trumped up charges! Hahahahaha!

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

      Delete
    8. I did not ask what you think Windsor's definition of a lie is, but I will re-phrase the question to you: in your opinion and using your definition, is Windsor a liar, yes or no?

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

      Delete
  20. "Susan", as long as you are using another person's name to comment, anytime you refer to someone as coward for posting anon you will be deleted.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing I'm censoring is your hypocrisy.

      Delete
    2. Here's a thought...why don't you just register another moniker, IDK...some name we all know and enjoy...Snoozan for instance?

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

      Delete
    4. There is a PH.D. Named Susan Harbison. Google her if you don't believe me. And she is also aware that you are commenting under her name. And don't try to pretend you didn't already know that.

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

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

      Delete
    7. Then figure out how to get that B in there. We don't see your email name dumb ass.

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

      Delete
    9. Oh, but everybody is supposed to pick a screen name other than anonymous because you prefer it?

      It wouldn't matter which alias you choose, your behavior is easily recognized.

      Delete
    10. Snoozie @ 2:13 "The reason I would like you to use screen names is so that I tell tell each of you apart from the others."

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bottom line Susan. As long as I have access to the delete button, I'll remove whatever I chose. Don't like what I'm doing? Move along and don't read here. Pretty simple huh?

      Delete
    2. Oops. I suddenly decided I didn't like that comment from Susan so I removed it. See how that works Suzie?

      Delete
    3. No worries Admin. Just clarifying your idea of free speech. I'm not going anywhere that is for sure.

      At one time, I saw a hint of integrity in you. You are the ONLY person here that I ever once saw own his shit. One of two things were going to happen if there was a GENII with integrity. Either he was going to bring the rest of the GENII up out of the gutter, or they were going to bring him down to their level. It is clear you stepped down. Too bad.

      Delete
    4. What a load of crap. You chastise me for being new, then talk of the past respect you had for me. And when I'm not acting as admin, I own everything I say here. And we all know you're not going anywhere, we're your only reason for getting up at 2:00 in the afternoon.

      Delete
    5. Admin are you really going to pretend you don't understand the difference between posting with a screen name and posting as anon?

      And you, Snooze are going to pretend there's no difference in posting with the name of a real person or persons and a made-up moniker?

      Delete
    6. You are the ONLY person here that I ever once saw own his shit.

      Well, either you (Snooze) are deeply confused as to the identity of Admin or you are a liar because your statement (above) is FALSE, and I can prove it.

      Delete
    7. I am delighted us Anons bother you.

      Delete
    8. I am delighted as well Anon@5:07 and I'm equally delighted to see her so panicked and bothered by being exposed as the identity thief, she is.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should be easy to figure out who I am. But since you can't tell anyone here apart, I don't have much faith that you have figured it out.

      Delete
    2. Doh. I'm one of several that have Admin controls here, also.
      None of the Admins here are NEW TO "THIS".

      The only reason you frequently visit any sites that allow open comments by you is because you get no visits to yours. It is obvious you are thirsty, parched for any interaction.

      Delete
    3. No, wrong again.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never call myself anon. And you are in no position to lecture anyone about integrity. You have none.

      Delete
    2. Then come right out and say who you think I am. I have more than enough integrity to tell you if your right.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Susan, I'm not Sam.

      Delete
    4. This is Sam Round, AKA Windsor Sluggo. I was outed by Windsor in the Spring of 2013 because I volunteered to help Allie Overstreet with her evidence in defending herself against Windsor's suit. Through discovery, I'm sure Windsor saw my emails to Allie offering to help he and made the connection. I didn't know Allie or anyone else over on Joey at that time. In fact, I've never met any of them except online and through the blog, and perhaps a phone call or two, but I would do the same for any of them. I have NO REGRETS whatsoever. In any case, I hereby confirm that I am not, nor ever have been, Admin on this site.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    5. Well then, take my word for it, I'm not Spamanon either.

      Delete
    6. "He had a VERY good investigator identifying people."

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

      Delete
  25. Sharon is the only one here making money by posting comments. Kind of ironic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm beginning to think all y'all are right. She's being paid by a terrorist organization to discourage these discussions. That's the only thing that makes sense of a person that does nothing but sit on a computer day and night to annoy and pick fights with people she finds so offensively beneath her.

      On the other hand, it could just be mental illness.

      Delete
  26. Trick or treat, Windsor? The trick will come next week. *Probably on the 20th or 21st. Relax. And prepare for trial.

    *yes, those are guesses, but I've reasons for making them -- good reasons? -- call it a coin flip, which ain't bad -- but that's just on timing -- it will be a trick, not a treat

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tonight the admins of this blog will be meeting to consider making a change. As you can see, allowing Susan to comment is becoming a problem. Her constant, non stop commenting pushes us to the "load more" point much to quickly. In order to correct this problem without having to constantly remove her drivel, we are considering changing to invitation only. In the mean time, some of Susan's comments will need to be removed to make room for others. Thanks for your continued understanding as we adapt to this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  28. She's a regular Dice-Clay...

    "Mary Deneen
    Maybe if you wear some flashy Yoga pants - you'll be lucky to get the trick or treat before Halloween. More · 2 minutes ago"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Windsor in yoga pants. ewwwwwww.

      Delete
  29. I was initially not going to continue to take part if this became invite only. That was stupid of me. Very. You do it, ill request an invitation. Whatever it takes. I've grown to like this little community quite a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you!
      I ❥ our Anons!
      We are working to make it as simple as possible.
      I did not ever want to stop, delete or moderate anyone's comments. Everyone should be able to comment, not just one.
      The other Admins humored me about her being allowed. I was wrong, they were correct.

      ~~~waving~~~

      Delete
    2. I will also request a invitation if you go private, Miss Petunia.
      Whatever you and the other admins decide, works for me.
      ~ Wave's back ~

      Delete
    3. Thank you!
      We just want it to be hassle free for commenters.
      May take a bit.
      Everyone has families, jobs, activities, chores, our real life stuff.
      The Admin crew rocks and will going to get accomplished!
      We don't want to lose y'all~

      ℗ ♛

      Delete
  30. Poor Willy. He posted his rejection form letter from the ACLU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awwww.
      Not.
      Anyone surprised? I was not.
      I do hope Windsor's defendants from his vexi fest contact the ACLU.

      Delete
    2. Commence collective sticking up arses...

      Delete
  31. Please feel free to continue to comment. We are currently moderating comments while "Susan" throws a tantrum while melting down. Comments will be published as quickly as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Been conversing via email with a lady lawyer friend of mine in Colorado. She was an assistant prosecutor for three years earlier in her career. I told her about the case, being as impartial as I could and asked her about Windsor's chances for a felony conviction. She said she'd be amazed if he wasn't convicted if I had described things halfway accurately. I asked about the two violations that made it a felony being a tweet and a legal notification. She said it doesn't matter what the violations were, just that they happened. She said what prosecutors do is get people convicted of crimes. They're either good at it or they don't last past their first few trials. She thinks Windsor convicted himself by posting the activities that led to the protective order on YouTube. After that, in the prosecution's summation, she can walk the jury through why repeated violations, no matter what they are, must result in a felony conviction.

    "What's the next violation going to be? A tweet? More direct stalking and intimidation, which this guy has already shown a willingness to not only do, but brag about it? Worse? He has to be stopped and you, the jury, can stop him."

    She gave that little summation without pause, like she'd done it before. Conviction? Easy Peasey, says one very sharp Colorado lady who seems to know what she's talking about.

    I'm certain other people who've never had the job and aren't even attorneys won't agree. Cough. Cough.

    ReplyDelete
  33. New post for comments. Turn the page please.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's like some folks here have said. The jury gets to see a couple of those SB University of Montana Sting videos and Windsor is found guilty. Maybe it isn't that simple but with a competent prosecution it's not a heck of a lot more complicated either.

    Sharon still melting down?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like a Dreamsicle in the summer sun, the identity thief is melting down.

      Turn the page>>> C'mon along!
      Still have some tweeking to do, but we're getting there!

      Delete
  35. Karen Jutkiewicz: "They [the ACLU] are useless they will only jump on a case for people of color or illegals."

    If I remember correctly, the ACLU represented The Klu Klux Klan, not once but several times when they thought that group's freedom to assemble was being violated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They fought with TX for the right of the Sons of Confederate Veterans o have the Confederate flag made on a license plate.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/22/south-carolina-got-it-right-on-the-confederate-flag-texas-got-it-wrong/

      Delete
    2. Karen really should launch an all search for her stfu.

      Delete